Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-03-09 BAA MINUTES• • • I. CALL TO ORDER. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS March 9 , 1988 The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Welker. Members present: Seymour, George, Lighthall, Welker, Doyle, Shaffer , Waldm an Members absent: None Also present: D. A. Romans, Staff Advisor Mary Alice Rothweiler, Planner Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney Walter Groditski, Code Administrator Gary Yoder, Chief Building Inspector Chairman Welker stated that there were seven members of the Board present , and five affirmative votes would be required to grant appro val of any var ianc e request before the Board. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. February 10, 1988 Chairman Welker stated that the Minutes of February 10, 1988, were to be con - sidered for approval. Seymour moved: Lighthall seconded : The Minutes of February 10, 1988 be approved as written. All members voted in the affirmative, and Chairman Welker ruled the Mi nutes approved as written. III. FINDINGS OF FACT. Case #2-88 Case #3 -88 Chairman Welker stated that the Findings of Fact on Case #2-88 and Case #3-8 8 were to be considered for approval. Seymour moved: Waldman seconded: The Findings of Fact for Case #2-88, John J. Mulcahy, ap- plicant, and the Findings of Fact for Case #3-88, Englewood Urban Renewal Authority, applicant, be approved as written. All members voted in the affirmative, and Chairman Welker ruled the Findings of Fact for Case #2-88 and Case #3-88 approved as written . - 1 - IV. CONVESTCO CASE #4-88 4890 South Broadway Chairman Welker declared the Public Hearing on Case #4-88 open. Mr. Welker stated that he had a copy of the verification of publication giving notice of the Public Hearing. Mr. Welker asked that the staff present the case. Mary Alice Rothweiler was sworn in and t estified that she i s a Planner in the Department of Community Dev elopment . Mrs. Rothweil er st ated t hat t he req uest before the Board of Adjustment and Appeals is an appeal from §3306p of the 1985 Uniform Building Code, which section requires a headroom clearance of 6'6" over stairways. The property in question is 4890 South Broadway; the applicant is Convestco, and the property owner is Quaker State Minit-Lube, Inc . Chairman Welker asked the applicant to present his case. Mr. Robert Grant was sworn in, and presented Exhibit #1, which is a typewrit - ten response to the staff report. Mr. Grant stated that the applicant is requesting a variance from the provision of a 6'6" stairwell clearance. The applicant does not feel the condition is hazardous as alleged by the Division of Building and Safety, nor does the applicant feel they were at fault for not following plans and specifications. Mr. Grant stated that it is the conten- tion of the applicant that the building was constructed exactly as the plans were presented to the City, and that it is the responsibility of the Division of Building and Safety to have caught any discrepancies between the plans as presented and the Code. Ms. Lighthall stated that she had visited the site, and that anyone 5'9" or taller will "duck" going down the stairs to avoid hitting their head on the I- Beam. Ms. Lighthall asked why it was not possible to construct the stairwell clearance to the required minimum of 6'6". Mr. Grant stated that as supervisor of the project, it was his responsibility to make sure the building was built as per the plans presented and to Code. It was an oversight on his part that he did not measure the area to make sure there was sufficient headroom, but also contended that it was the respon- sibility of the City Plans Examiner to make sure the plans were proper. Mr. Welker asked Mr. Grant if he was aware of the 6'6" headroom clearance re- quirement. Mr. Grant stated that he was aware of this requirement. Ms . Lighthall stated that when she visited the site and spoke to the gentleman on the premises at that time, she asked him about problems with the building, and he had indicated that there were a number of problems wherein things had to be "redone" or "moved around", and that these problems were things that "were on the plans". Mr . Grant stated that in any project, there are always a number of small things that have to be finished and redone , and that any proj - ect has a "punch list" of things that have to be modified or changed before it is finished. Mr. Grant referred to a letter from Chief Building Inspecto r Yoder which was attached to the Staff Report, which contained a number of • • items yet to be completed; he noted that all these items have been taken care • of with the exception of the sump pumps and the headroom clearance on the stairways . -2 - • • • Mr. Wel ker asked if this buildi ng was a standard building that is used by Minit-Lube. Mr. Grant stated t hat this is the second proto type building in the U. S. of this design. The footprint and exterior are exactly the same. Mr. Grant acknowledged that there were problems with the first building, which was constructed in Salt Lake, but he was not made aware of the problem prior to his construction of this building. Mr. Doyle noted that one of Mr. Grant 's proposed solutions is to sign the stairways for use by Employe es only, and questioned the need for emergency personnel to have access to the lower are a of the building. He pointed out that this could result in an in jury to a membe r of an emergency crew that might be called to the site. Mr. Grant's response was that someone could also fall down the stairs and be i njured that way rat her than bumping their head on the I-Beam. Mr . Welker asked Mr. Grant what method the appl i cant proposes to remedy the problem. Mr. Grant suggested that there are several methods of resolving the situation, and that one means would be to ignore the problem. Mr. Welker stated that this was not an acceptable means to resolve the problem. Mr. Grant suggested that other mea ns of resolution would be to: 1. Cut off the lip out of the edge of the I-Beam. 2. Attach a neoprene pad. 3. Attach a sign on the beam that says "Watch your head." 4. Place a gate at the top of the stairs. 5. Attach a sign on the gate that says "Employees Only." Mr. Grant stated that he did not feel that cutting a portion of the lip out of the I-Beam would harm the integrity of the Beam. Mr. Welker asked if considerat i on had been given to redoing the stairs. Mr. Grant stated that one means would be to make the opening larger, which would entail cutting a larger hole in the floor and impeding pedestrian movement from the bay area into the cashier area. A second way would be to cut the stairs loose, and reduce the tread width. Mr. Grant pointed out that both of these methods are very costly and would cause a hardship on the owner who has just opened this business and is trying to get it going. Mr. Welker asked if reducing the tread width of the stairs to 10" rather than the 10.5" would violate the Code. Mr. Grant stated it would not. Mr . Doyle stated that Mr . Gran t had made reference to the owner; is this not a franchise business . Mr . Grant stated that it is corporately owned, but is not a franchise . Ms. Shaffer asked how much additional headroom would be realized if the width of the stair treads were to be red uced to 10". Mr . Grant estimated that it might move the stairs ba c k 6", but questioned that it would provide the ade - quate clearance requi r ed by Cod e . Mr . Gr ant r e iter ated that the plans as presented to the City we r e fo ll owed by the cont r actor . Mr. Welker asked if anyone el s e wi s hed to spea k i n favor. No one else spoke in favor of the requested va r iance . Mr. Welker then asked i f an yo ne wished t o speak in opposition. -3 - Wa l t Groditski was sworn in and testified that he is Code Administrator for • the City of Englewood. Mr. Groditski presented members of the Board with cop- ies of Chapter 3 of the 1985 edition of the UBC, entitled Permits and Inspec- tions. This information was labeled Exhibit #2 and presented to the Board by the Secretary. Mr. Groditski made reference to several areas of this UBC ex- cerpt which he had highlited, which references include: §302 (a) 4. Every such application shall: ... Be accompanied by plans, diagrams, computations and specifica- tions and other data as required in Subsection (b) of this section. §302 (c) Information on Plans and Specifications. Plans and specifications shall be drawn to scale upon substantial paper or cloth and shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that it will conform to the pro- visions of this code and all relevant laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. §303 (a) " ... Such approved plans and specifications shall not be changed, modified or altered without authorizations from the building offi- cial, and all work shall be done in accordance with the approved plans." §303 (c) " ... The issuance of a permit based upon plans, specifications and other data shall not prevent the building official from thereafter requiring the correction of errors in said plans, specifications and • other data, or from preventing building operations being carried on thereunder when in violation of this code or of any other ordinances of this jurisdiction." Mr. Groditski stated that it the contention of the Building & Safety Division that the installation of the stairways was not done in accordance with the approved plans. Mr. Gary Yoder, Chief Building Inspector, was sworn in. Mr. Yoder stated that Plans Examiner Williams had planned to be in attendance at the meeting, but has been ill for several days. Mr. Yoder stated that he has reviewed the plans that Mr. Williams approved, and is familiar with the matter. Mr. Yoder referred to the staff report, which included a xerox copy of the stair plans which were considered by the Building & Safety Division staff. Mr. Yoder pointed out that this drawing indicates the I-Beam going across the stairs would be out of the range of the stairs. Mr. Yoder stated that he has also shown on the drawing the I-beam in the location it has been constructed. The position of the Building & Safety Division is that there should be no reason for a stairway in a new building to be constructed with inadequate headroom. There is no reason to subject employees to a necessary "ducking" of their heads to avoid hitting the I-Beam. Mr. Yoder stated that the Building & Safe- ty Division feels there are two ways to correct this problem, these being: 1) 2) To reconstruct the stairway openings to provide clear headroom as designed. To reconstruct both stairways using a ten inch tread dimension or the closest dimension thereto which would, when complete, provide the required headroom by shortening the total stair run length. -4 - • • • • Mr. Yoder stated that the Building & Safety Division would accept a reduction in the stair tread width down to 9" because of the limited occupancy load of the stairway. Mr. Yoder stated it is the contention of the Building & Safety Division that the headroom problem is a greater safety factor than the dif- ference between a 9" to 10" stair tread depth. Ms. Lighthall referenced the handout given them by Mr. Groditski which indi- cates plans shall be "drawn to scale", and noted that drawing attached to the staff report of the stair way i ndicates "No Scale". Mr. Yoder pointed out that the drawing attached to the sta ff report does have dimensions cited on it, and in such a case, the sta ff would use the dimensions cited. Mr. Doyle stated that if the treads were re duced to 9" from the indicated 10.5", the stairs would be moved back 16" by his estimation. He asked if this would be sufficient for clearance. Mr . Yoder stated that the stairs would have to be moved back at least 10 to 11". Mr . Yoder stated that it is his opinion that it is feasible to redo the stairs without disturbing the floor openings, and that the architect could bring plans that would accomplish this and bring the building into compliance with the Code. Ms. Shaffer asked how far the I-Beam extends over the stairs. Mr. Yoder stated that it is right with the nose of the second step up, or approximately 10.5" over the stairs. Mr. Yoder stated that the staff did not concern them- selves with redoing the opening of the stairways inasmuch as there is another way to correct the problem by shortening the stair treads. Mr. Welker asked if anyone else wished to speak on this matter . Mr. Groditski read §303 (c) of the 1985 UBC again for the benefit of the Board members. Mr. Welker asked if the applicant wanted to make a further statement. Mr. Grant asked that the Board review his typewritten reply to the staff re- port. Mr. Grant stated that he feels his company and the owner are being se- verely punished by making them replace the stairs, when the stairs were in- stalled exactly in accordance with plans. If the Plans Examiner did rely on the plans as presented and attached to the back of the Staff Report, he did not feel it was fair to require correction by the contractor and property owner because no scale was cited on those plans. Mr . Grant stated that the drawings, with no fault of the Plans Examiner, are totally incorrect. When he does the actual construction, he goes though the detailed plans to where a stair well opening is cited, and builds the stairs from the information cited in that area of the plans. Mr. Welker asked "you are say i ng this [referring to the xeroxed plans] isn't right?" Mr. Grant stated tha t this is correct . Mr. Doyle asked whose respon- sibility it was to make this drawing which was submitted. Mr. Grant stated that it was the responsibility of the owner 's architect. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Welker suggested that it is not the responsibility of the Plans Examiner to calculate dimensions for the s tairways from those given for a stairwell opening, and it is not acceptable to have headroom clearance less than that required by the Code . - 5 - Ms . Li gh t hall stated that the Code is published and available and it is to be complied with. The City does not have to make the adjustments to meet the problems created by not following the provisions of the Code. Mr. Grant stated that he has been told he did not build in accordance with the plans as submitted, and it is his contention that they did build in accordance with the plans. Mr. Welker stated that the issue is that the building was not constructed in accordance with the Code, and the plans are, by Mr. Grant's admission, wrong. It is the responsibility of the contractor and the owner to see that a building is cons tr ucted in compliance with the provisions of the Code. Mr. Seymour cited that section of the UBC which requires that plans shall be submitted drawn to scale, and stated that it is the responsibility of the con- tractor to see that they are submitted drawn to scale. Mr. Welker stated that the problem before the board is to try to rectify a problem, and not determine who is at fault. Mr. Welker asked that the Staff Report for Case #4-88 be made a part of the record of the Hearing, and declared the Public Hearing on Case #4-88 closed. Mr. Welker asked the pleasure of the Board. Seymour moved: Waldman seconded: The appeal from §3306p of the 1985 Uniform Building Code, which section requires a headroom clearance of 6'6" over stairways for property at 4890 South Broadway be granted. Ms. Lighthall stated that she has a problem with a new building that has been built and does not meet Code. Mr. Seymour stated that the rules and regula- tions were not followed. Mr. Welker stated that this is a problem that can be corrected. Mr. Welker asked the members of the Board for their Findings. Mr. Seymour stated that he voted no, because there is a means to correct the problem available to the applicant. Ms. George stated that she voted no, because there is a way to correct the problem. Ms. Lighthall stated that she voted no, because the Code is available to con- tractors to review; it can be followed, and it should be followed. Mr. Doyle stated that he voted no because the building does not conform to the Code and the problem can be cor r ected. Ms. Shaffer stated that she voted no because of a hazardous condition, and the building does not meet the Code . Mr . Waldman stated that he vot ed no , becau s e none of the r ea s ons f or granting a variance have been given . Mr. Welker stated that he voted no; it is a haza r dous problem, do es not meet the Code, and to grant a variance would weaken the Code . -6 - • • • • • • Mr. Welker stated that there were seven no vot es; the motio n f ai l ed . Mr . Welker suggested that the applicant and his architect work out a solution to the problem with the Building & Safety Division . V. DI RECTOR'S CHOICE. Ms. Romans stated that Mrs. Rousses had a death in her family, and cou l d not be in attendance at the meeting this evening. Ms. Romans stated that she had received a letter from former Board Member Howard Brown expressing regret on his resignation from the Board and his en- joyment at having worked with the members. She stated that she does have an address if any member would like to correspond with Mr. Brown. VI. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE. Ms. Reid stated that she had nothing to bring before the Board unless they wished to adjourn to Executive Session to review an Attorney/Client communique she had presented to them. VII. BOARD MEMBER'S CHOICE. Members of the Board wished Mrs. Romans a Happy Birthday. The Board meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M . ertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary Pro Tern .. -7 -