Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Board of Adjustment 1994-03-03BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Board of Adjustment March 3, 1994 Board: Attending; Also Attending: Absent: Chairman Habecker, Members Dekker, Doylen, Newsom, and Sager Chairman Habecker, Members Dekker, Doylen, Newsom, and Sager Community Development Director Stamey, Town Attorney White, Deputy Clerk Kuehl None Chairman Habecker called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the July 7, 1993 meeting were approved as submitted. 251 E. RIVERSIDE DRIVE. Lot S3. JAMES F. AND KATHERINE G. HOOD/PETITIONERS - REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE Petitioners are requesting variance from Section 17.16.040 of the Municipal Code and Floodplain Regulations. A comparison of existing and required setbacks follows: Required Setbacks Existing Setbacks Proposed Setbacks River 30' from high water mark 5,2,, deck encroachment over river 6.5' building encroachment over river 5' deck encroachment No change Street 25'Iff No change Side (N)10’3‘No change Side (S)10’6.75' building O' deck Building-same Deck-0' (to property line) Town Administrator Klaphake reported on study session was held with the Hood's, Director Stamey, A1 Sager, and Dave Habecker to identify the issues. Paul Saunders, representing the applicants, stated he discovered cracks in the foundation supporting the deck and recommended facing with concrete and reinforcement bar, removing three of the five posts supporting the deck, and rebuilding the handrail to conform to code. Because of location, these changes require a variance to structurally alter a nonconforming building through approval of the Board of Adjustment, F.E.M.A., and the Corps of Engineers. Based upon Saunders' analysis, Paul Kochevar concluded the proposed project would cause a rise in the flood level of 2 inches. Director Stamey noted this request involves a variance from both the Zoning Ordinance and the Floodplain Regulations as follows; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The house at 251 E. Riverside Drive is non-confoirming in that it does not meet front, side, or river setbacks. The structure overhangs the floodway by approximately 5 feet. Proposed new deck would overhang the floodway by another 5'2". New concrete footing and foundation are proposed to be constructed in the floodway. The western 10'-12' of the structure is in the floodfringe, or 100 year floodplain. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Board of Adjustment, March 3, 1994 <- Page 2 The Board of Adjustment is to consider variances to allow: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Structural alteration of a nonconforming building to allow extension of a new foundation which does not meet the required river setback. Construction of a new foundation in the floodway. Structural alteration and extension of a nonconforming building to allow a new deck which does not meet the required river setback. Construction of a new deck over the floodway and in the floodfringe. Improvement to a structure in the floodfringe which does not meet the requirements of the floodplain regulations. After research and examination of the property. Staff recommends: 1. Denial of a variance to construct a new foundation in the floodway. Section 17.28.160, D, provides that: "No variance shall be granted within the regulatory floodway if the base flood level will be increased." A letter dated February 18, 1994 from Paul Kochevar, Estes Park Surveyors and Engineers, reveals a 3.5% reduction in the capacity of the floodway and an increase in the flood level by 2 inches. 2. Denial of the variance to allow construction of a new deck that extends over the floodway. This recommendation is based on several factors, including the adopted purpose of the Floodplain Regulations which state: "It is the overall purpose and intent of this chapter to promote the health, safety, and general welfare, to provide adequate zoning regulations to minimize death, injury and losses to public and private property due to flooding." The Board of Adjustment may issue a variance from the provisions of the Floodplain Regulations only after making a specific finding that the variance will not endanger health, welfare, and safety of the applicant, or any upstream or downstream owner or occupier of land. Occupancy of the deck, particularly during high run-off, is a hazard to life. The deck is also a potential obstruction of river flow and could catch debris. If damaged by debris during run-off, the deck could become a hazard interfering with river flow. As there are other owners with decks and walls along the river who could submit similar requests, approval of a deck extension could set an undesirable precedent and increase the impacts of the floodway and floodfringe. The applicant was advised the Floodplain Regulations provide that: "No substantial improvement may be made to any structure which does not conform to the requirements of this chapter." (e.g. elevating and floodproofing) Director Stamey added that John Liou, Engineer/Hydrologist with F.E.M.A., advised the Town that F.E.M.A. regulations do not allow any increase in the floodway. He stated that the variance request and construction violates F.E.M.A.'s regulations and that they cannot give approval to this construction work. F.E.M.A. considers the proposed removal of deck support posts to be irrelevant to the river flow. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Board of Adjustment, March 3, 1994 - Page 3 Attorney White explained that the purpose of F.E.M.A. is to recognize and remove dangerous structures in any area, not just the floodway. The ramifications of granting this variance are serious. The Town is required to adopt and include Floodplain Regulations in the Zoning Ordinances. If these regulations are not maintained, anyone within Town limits needing commercial lending and/or flood insurance will be denied. These regulations have been imposed because of the two major floods in the Estes Valley which claimed many lives and buildings. Member Sager questioned the need for a motion to deny the request if the Board doesn't have the power, ability or authority to consider a variance. Attorney White explained that because a request was made and information was provided and accepted,^ a motion is proper. Member Doylen commented that during spring runoff, any obstruction can hold debris and pull foundations loose endangering life. Any change that would enhance that possibility should not be approved. Member Dekker questioned the extent of the hydrology study — the distance upstream and downstream, the restrictions above or below the area being considered, and the effect on the immediate area. Attorney White stated that the plan as presented increases base water flow in the area and, because of the F.E.M.A. regulations, is enough to warrant denial of the variance request. Designer Saunders reiterated that since this is not a life threatening situation, only one of maintenance, nothing will be done at this time except to investigate other ways to improve the property, and added it is shameful to deny the requested property improvement. Saunders stated the Applicants will keep the deck unless ordered to remove it, and it will continue to deteriorate. All comments regarding the danger involved is anybody's guess if it will happen. Member Sager remarked the owners should consider the possibility that, in the event of extreme water flow, the posts may be torn out leading to serious damage to many properties. Doylen added that allowing the deck to deteriorate is an endangerment and could be considered a willful disregard of other people's property. Saunders regretted any misinterpretation of his statement that the owners would allow deterioration of the property. Member Newsom asked what changes could be made to the deck. Director Stamey answered the only acceptable improvement is removal of the deck. Saunders said the owners will maintain and upgrade as much as allowable and will investigate other ways to correct foundation problems; however, setback requirements demand the owner return to Board of Adjustment each time a change is made. Saunders questioned the ability of neighbors to make repairs/changes in their residences without variances or hearings. It was moved and seconded (Doylen—Sager) the varxance request for construction of a new foundation in the floodway be denied, based upon Attorney White's findings that Estes Valley residents will be unzdsle to obtain commercial lending and flood insurance if such approval is given, and it passed unanimously. It was moved and seconded (Sager-Doylen) that a new deck extension over the floodway at 251 E. Riverside Drive be denied, becauseof potential property deunage to the property owner and surrounding buildings in the area. Member Dekker stated he would vote for the motion, although it appears the Board is promoting deterioration rather than repair. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Habecker stated that the Code could not be disregarded; however, the Committee would be receptive to another plan not conflicting with the issues stated. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Board of Adjustment, March 3, 1994 <- Page 4 Applicant Hood explained that the house was purchased while vacationing in Estes Park, and she was unaware the property was in the floodplain. Hood questioned the Town's disregard in notifying them that this location is a hazard and the Town was interested in purchasing property along the river. Chairman Habecker explained there is no set policy on property purchase by the Town. Attorney White added the Town could not approach potential buyers with any information because of the possibility of lawsuits, and further explained the Town would like to acquire property in this area but those decisions are based on many factors — funding, timing, etc. — disallowing a set schedule. Member Dekker expressed regret that the previous property owners, the real estate agents, and the design representatives did not take responsibility to inform potential buyers of the existing problem and added the Town does not become aware of these situations until a building permit is requested. There being no further business. Chairman Habecker adjourned the meeting at 9:40 a.m. 1 KuxlRJ^ Tina Kuehl, Deputy Town Clerk