Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout503 Remington St - Appeal/Building Code - 11/03/1981BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 3, 1981 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Brenner, Chairman Dick Hollar Randy Larsen Harold Miller Chuck Onstad Dennis Sinnett Chet Smith STAFF PRESENT: William E. Waldo, Chief Building Official Felix Lee, Deputy Chief .Building Official Mark Sprenger, Fire Inspector Peter Ruggiero, Assistant City Attorney Debbie Hover, Secretary, Building Inspection Appeal #345 Application made by Frank Malyska for ZVFK, Architects, on behalf of RIM, Ltd. for a variation from the requirements of Section 3303(i) so as to permit an exit door opening out over a landing with greater than one -inch drop, and Section 3305(j) so as to permit an exterior stairway with no handrails. Address: 503 Remington Street Additional Information: The building is an historic older home which had been occupied in the past years as a professional office. Due to a recent extensive renovation of the entire structure and conversion of the unoccupied attic and basement areas to office space, the addition of the exterior handrails was re- quired by this office. As part of the conditions for using the third story attic space, a second exit from the second story was also required which ter- minated onto an existing rear porch. The existing porch was determined to be inadequate by the appellant and subsequently replaced with a new porch that was installed to the same substandard height as the original, without approval by this office. Plans and photographs will be available for clarification. Mr. Lee presented the appeal to the Board. He explained that this structure is a State historical designation. He stated that, with the use of the second story and the increased occupant load, the handrail is necessary, es- pecially with the stone step. Mr. Malyska reviewed the plans and pictures with the Board, explaining that the porch had to be redone to bring it up to the proper load capacity. He said they did not raise it up another riser in order to keep with the historical integrity of the structure. With regards to the handrail, Mr. Brenner suggested to Mr. Malyska that a wrought iron rail possibly be placed in the middle, making it less obtrusive. Mr. Brenner stated that this part of the appeal could be worked out adminis- tratively with the Building Inspection Staff. continued r BBA REGULAR MEETING - 11/3/81 PAGE TWtl Mr. Brenner asked Mr. Waldo about the swing of the door as to which way would be the least hazardous. Mr. Waldo felt that the door should swing out with a notice posted that there is a step-down. Mr. Brenner summarized the appeal, stating the Board would need to require that either the landing be raised one riser or that they accept the solution proposed by Mr. Malyska to place a step at the exit door. Mr. Onstad asked if there would have been any problem if the porch had never been rebuilt. Mr. Lee stated that it would have been an existing situation and would not have been addressed. Mr. Smith stated he felt it was no more hazardous than it had been before being rebuilt. He said that, with these older structures, there will most likely be variances requested and that this was a give and take situation all the way through. Mr. Hollar said he saw this as a financial matter and could not approve it. MOTION MADE BY Mr. Smith to approve the appeal based on the fact that it appeared to be no more hazardous than the existing condition. SECONDED by Mr. Onstad. In the discussion, Mr. Hollar asked Mr. Malyska what the rationale was for putting the new porch back the way it was. Mr. Malyska stated they were wanting to keep the historical integrity of the building intact. Mr. Larsen asked if the State would object to the porch being raised one riser. Mr. Brenner stated this appeal could be tabled until they receive a statement from the State Historical Society on their opinion with regards to the porch being raised. Mr. Smith said''he felt it was a matter more of the Board deciding on the safety of how the porch was built. MOTION FAILED (4-1). Mr. Brenner stated the porch would have to be raised to the level of the threshold. Under Other Business, Mr. Waldo informed the Board that, since the Federal Act no longer addresses glazed panels, they will be enforcing the State standards until they come up with their own standards. He stated this will be brought back to the Board at a later date. He handed out copies of several impact glazing requirements that they will be looking at. He said he had talked with some people from the glass shops in town and they felt these requirements were quite clear and addressed the issues plainly. Mr. Lee stated that the Board has received their copies of the code changes they endorsed back in July which have been adopted. He said the Code Change Committee will be looking at the locking hardware issue soon and would report back to the Board on this. He summarized some of the issues covered at the Annual ICBO Conference he attended in Indianapolis and said one of the issues he will be looking at prior to the 1982 Code will be the provisions for atriums. He said these are becoming more and more prevalent and this will need to be addressed soon. He said he will also be working on proposed changes to the definition for "property line" with regards to zero lot line townhouse condo- miniums. He said these changes will be presented to the Code Change Committee with their endorsement possibly within a month or two. Mr. Ruggiero gave the Board a followup report on the deed restriction issue that had come up earlier. He said he had talked with Felix about this and said he saw some problems from a legal standpoint with placing deed restrictions on variances that the Board reviews. He said that the Zoning Board of Appeals at one time dealt with conditional Certificate of Occupancies and found some difficulty in monitoring the employees enforcing these conditional C.0's. continued PAGE TWO BBA - 2/3/81 permitting plastic skylights within four feet of the protected wall on the grounds that the Board does not know the reasoning for the code change from four feet to eight feet. SECONDED by Mr. Onstad. In the discussion, Mr. Onstad asked Mr. Cain if the pitch was great enough to put the skylight eight feet from the peak? Mr. Cain replied that his situation would not be able to go eight feet. Mr. Hollar stated that the applicant had not given the Board any options. Mr. Onstad stated that he was sympathetic with Mr. Cain's situa- tion and that if Mr. Waldo received more clarification from ICBO, he had the authority to approve this then. Mr. Brenner stated that the -Board had the right to approve extra measures such as wireglass if it is a viable alternative and would provide additional safeguards. Mr. Brenner made the recommendation that Mr. Waldo, upon receiving further written clarification from ICBO, is to take this to the Code Committee for them to look at the reasoning behind the code change and then report back to the Board. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO DENY the appeal pertaining to the four foot distance to the protected wall. Appeal #324 - Application made by ZVFK Architects on behalf of Rim Ltd. for a variation of the requirements of (1) Section 1716 and (2) 3304(b) of the Uniform Building Code (1979 Edition) so as to permit (1) existing guardrail of 31 inches in height on interior second floor stairway and existing 22-inch height guardrail on exterior porch; (2) 42-inch wide exit corridor in basement. Address - 503 Remington Occupancy - existing B-2 office Additional Information: Both guardrails are required by Code to be a minimum of 42 inches in height. The corridor is required to be a minimum of 44 inches in width. However, the occupant load in the basement is just slightly over 10. Plans will be available at the hearing. Mr. Jim Criswell, the representative for ZVFK, presented the plans to the Board for their review. He explained that the square footage in the basement is 1540 and there will be offices down there. He said that they are trying to keep everything as it was and not have it looking like it was added on. Mr. Hollar stated that ire felt the guar ' I - draft could li1d be rebuilt to mak.. it authentic -looking and felt that an ill, difference was a substantial difference from the first and second floor railing heights. Mr. Brenner stated that he saw this as a costly item to redo but that the Board had not approved them when they were quite that low - they had looked at 36" heights before. Mr. Hollar felt that they were looking at a hazardous situation. Mr. Brenner addressed the other part of the appeal stating that there was only a two inch variance from Code here. MOTION MADE by Mr. Onstad to grant the variance allowing a 42" wide exit corridor instead of the minimum 44" wide corridor because of the slightness of the variance. SECONDED by Mr. Miller. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. continued PAGE THREE BBA - 2/3/81 Mr. Larsen suggested that the applicant build the grade up six inches around the front porch and this would alleviate that problem. Mr. Brenner stated that this would not require a variance so the applicant withdrew the variance on the 22" porch rail. In discussing the 31" height guardrail on the second floor stairway, Mr. Waldo asked if there was a way to raise it up. He stated that it would be alright to have a 9" space below, that this would still be below Code, but that he could deal with this administratively for the 2" difference. Mr. Brenner agreed that there was a potential hazardous sitbiati-on- here and that it did need to be raised up to Code. MOTION MADE by Mr. Onstad to deny the 31" height variance for the second floor guardrail. SECONDED by Mr. Hollar., MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO DENY the variance. The Board then heard an updated report on the Therma-Floor System from Mr. Charles Graham and Jim Connell. Mr. Brenner asked what the status was with UL approval since that was the Board's last decision - without UL approval, they would not approve the System. Mr. Graham stated that they were still moving towards it and that they would be presenting the final design to UL in about two weeks. He stated that they have improved the System - it has solid state electronicks and over -temperature protection for the secondary and the transformer. Mr. Connell presented the Board with a list of installa- tions of the System that he has made in the surrounding area, California, and Red Feathers area. Mr. Brenner asked if they were approved in all muni- cipalities in Colorado except Fort Collins. Mr. Graham stated that they have not opened up everywhere until they do get UL approval. A crude layout of the System was shown to the Board. They explained some of the improvements of the System (a bronze screen instead of the brass sheet, modified controls, and over -current protection). Mr. Brenner asked about the heat build-up of the transformer. Mr. Graham stated that it doesn't get that hot during operation and that the temperature throughout the System is so mild that there is little concern for ignition of materials. Mr. Hollar asked about the National Electric Code's position on this. Mr. Graham stated that they have filed _wit-b- the_Board- and they are to write up the section of the Code as they see it pertaining to their System. The Code Board's Chairman would then present this to the Board. Mr. Hollar stated that at the last meeting, one of the pertinent subjects covered was how the City's inspectors were to handle inspecting this System since they are not covered in the Code. He asked what their basis for inspect- ing the wiring would be. He stated that there needs to be written instructions on this. Mr. Hollar went on to state that he felt very strongly about approving the System and that he would still have problems approving it even with UL approval since the Electric Code does not address the low voltage problem. Mr. Graham said that they will get UL approval on the cabinet (for the trans- former) but that they were not covered on the leads. He stated that they will soon be approved by Hauser Laboratories. Mr. Hollar asked if they had gone directly to the Code Board with this. Mr. Graham stated they had not. Mr. Hollar again stated that they were not covered by Code (the transformer was oversized) and that this Board had to look at the only place they knew - to the Code. Mr. Onstad asked about the warranty on the System. Mr. Graham said it had a ten year warranty and that people were happy with the System. Mr. Brenner summarized the discussion stating that Mr. Graham and Mr. Connell were not forcing the issue of approval but that they would like the Board's approval so they can install in the City. He asked the Board if there was any change in their stance for the UL approval requirement. Mr. Onstad asked, if they had state approval, what basis was there for not allowing City installation? continued