Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Board of Adjustment 1996-09-03BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Board of Adjustment September 1996 Board: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chairman Pauley, Members Barker, Baudek, Newsom, Sager Members Barker, Baudek, Newsom, Sager Public Works Director Linnane, Building Official Allman and Secretary Botic Chairman Pauley Vice Chairman Sager called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. MINUTES The minutes of the August 6, 1996 meeting were accepted as presented. WHITE MEADOW VIEW PLACE. LOT 27. 840 FAWN LANE. BETTY KUEHL/ APPLICANT - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM SECTION 17.20.040 Bl.a AND b. OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE WHICH REQUIRES TEN FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND TWENTY FIVE FEET FROM THE STREET. Vice Chairman Sager stated he had previously viewed the property with the Applicant and assisted in identifying two property corners and advised Applicant to speak with John Allman and Steve Stamey. Applicant is proposing to erect a detached private garage to a single family dwelling. Building Official Allman reviewed his staff report and recommended approval. Mr. Allman clarified for the Board that this area is R-M Residential and the garage will be for one car. No correspondence was received; one telephone call was received in support of the variance. There were no audience comments. It was moved and seconded (Newsom-Barker) the setback variance be approved for 840 Fawn Lane, Lot 27, White Meadow View Place, and it passed unanimously. RIVERSIDE SUBDIVISION. PORTION OF LOT 22. 253 EAST RIVERSIDE, FRANK GUNTER/APPLICANT — REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM SECTION 17.20.040 B.2 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE WHICH REQUIRES A THIRTY FOOT SETBACK FROM THE BIG THOMPSON RIVER. Applicant is proposing to enclose an existing covered porch. Building Official Allman reviewed the staff report recommending denial explaining there is concern with adding to a nonconforming structure. In response to Member Baudek's question, Mr. Allman stated this proposal would not change the footprint of the area, the footings are within the floodplain, the floor of the structure is not in the floodplain. Mr. Allman stated when improvements are made, values increase which present a problem if/when there is damage. Mr. Allman did not foresee a weight problem if the variance were approved; he suggested hanging some type of covering rather than enclosing the porch. Applicant's representative David Habecker stated he did not dispute any of Staff's comments; he was on the Board of Adjustment on March 3, 1994 when a similar request by the Gunter's neighbor was denied. He stressed the difference with this request is that the streambed would not be changed and could alleviate a potential problem. He referred to the information submitted with the Applicant's application which stated 'the floor of the residence and existing deck are 1.45' and 0.98' above the 100 year flood elevation per Van Horn Engineering'. He stated the reason for the 30' setback is for access to the river and not because of flooding. The access to the river is not applicable in this case as there is another house in this area and a riverwalk is not possible at this time. He stated the request is simple and falls within the Municipal guidelines. Member Newsom asked if the new area BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Board of Adjustment September 3, 1996 Page 2 4. would be winterized and recalled the March 1994 application involved a second story. Member Newsom also stated the Board attempts to treat all people equal and other requests have been denied. Mr. Habecker responded there is a State law requiring minimum insulation requirements if the porch would be enclosed and noted using plywood for winter protection would not require a building permit. Mr. Habecker stated another difference from the 1994 application is that it would have required supports which would have changed the flow of the river. Vice Chairman Sager clarified the difference in the two examples had to do with encroachment into the riverbank and floodplain and noted floodplain regulations are different from river requirements. In response to Vice Chairman Sager's question, Public Works Director Linnane stated construction may occur in a floodplain in an existing non-confoinning building, however, if this were a new structure, construction would not be allowed; construction cannot occur in a floodway. Mr. Habecker stated the work done so far on the porch was done without a permit; there is now a red tag on the wall. The roof was leaking and repairs were done to the roof and window framing was added. He stated it would be advantageous to remove the current support in the river at this time and replace with steel beams. Mr. Sager asked what the Town's liability would be if this v?ere approved. Mr. Linnane stated in 1994 the FEMA officer came to the Board of Adjustment meeting and even though the finished space would have been above the 100 year flood elevation, this would not have been legal and would have jeopardized insurability and that no construction should occur in the floodway. Mr. Sager read the following from the March 1994 minutes: "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 qranting 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." Mr. Gunter reviewed his history with the home since 1974. He noted the structure withstood the 1936 flood and appreciates the Board and does not want to do anything illegal. He has been doing his own work with one other individual and did lengthen the porch by 4'. He stressed his work was not done in defiance; he didn't realize he needed a building permit. He does not believe he will have the house much longer due to his age and at that time the Town will be free to purchase his home and requested approval to improve his home. Mr. Sager asked Mr. Gunter to recognize that the Board cannot jeopardize other citizen's ability to be insurable. It was moved and seconded (Baudek-Barker) the ''“iancf. for 253 East Riverside, Portion of Lot 22, Riyersi Subdivision, be continued to the October 1, 1996 s° that Attorney White could clarify the floodway area, and it passed unanimously. rrmNTRY CLUB wawnp ADDITION. LOT 3, BLOCK 6, 441 ELM AVENUE^ nnwxn nwn DONNA J. SHULL/APPLICANTS - gpoM gPCTTOW 17.20.040 B.l.a. AND b. _of the MUNICIPAL CODE. Applicant is p^posing to erect an attached c^rport to a storage building. Building official Allman reviewed his staff BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Board of Adjustment September 2, 1996 Page 3 5. report and noted that on July 15, 1996 he issued a 'Stop Work' order and recommended denial of this request. Mr. Sager requested Public Works Director Linnane give information regarding Fir Avenue. Mr. Linnane stated the Town has no immediate plans to construct Fir Avenue; if construction were to occur the slope would need to be reduced and some type of turnaround would need to be added. Mr. Linnane responded to Mr. Sager's question on Fir Avenue stating he considers Fir Avenue an alley. Mr. Allman stated the Code addresses streets not alleys. Mr. Sager stated it was not fair to penalize a person with two street 'fronts' and this request could be for a 5' variance not 20' if the 'front' of the property were reversed. Applicant David Shull stated he didn't realize he couldn't build a carport and does not plan to enclose the carport if approved. He would complete the carport roof and add paint if the request is approved. Joe Pitsch, an adjacent neighbor, asked for clarification on the rear setback for Fir Avenue as he would like to build a garage in the future and did not have any objection to the approval of this request. Mr. Allman was not able to determine if the current structure is in conformance with the Uniform Building Code. If approved, the next step would be to apply, submit plans, and comply with the UBC. Member Baudek noted the carport is attached to a current structure and is not freestanding. It was moved and seconded (Newsom-Barker) the setback variance of 5' be approved for 441 Elm Avenue, Lot 3, Block 6, County Club Manor Addition with the following conditions, and it passed unanimously. • The existing carport may remain in its current location provided construction complies with the Uniform Building Code. • The carport will not be enclosed. REPORTS Mr. Sager expressed his appreciation to Mr. Allman for his follow-up to Mr. Webermeier and stated that he disagreed with the date for compliance, which could have been September 15, 1996 in lieu of October 15, 1996. Mr. Sager expressed concern with Beaver Point Addition, Tract 12, Lot 1, 907 Moraine Avenue and their promise on April 4, 1995 to only display furniture on their front porch and not in their front yard. After a discussion, it was agreed that Mr. Allman would follow-up on this and in the future this type of observation/concern could be taken care of directly with Mr. Allman. There being no further business. Vice Chairman Sager adjourned the meeting 9:22 a.m. Roxanne S. Botic, Recording Secretary