HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Board of Adjustment 1986-06-25BRADFORD POSL,SH1NG CO
BOard of Mjustment
June 25, 1985
Board:
Attending:
Also Attending;
Absent;
ChairmanLamson and L^ager Mei"b«= BroKn, Habecker_
All
SsS-vs?::'--' fe
None
from nPT„„.,.„ ..rr
d°«teahatW2'83EMoSi„SeUfl”tnued aMrVaRianCe request f°r Property
Of the Board of Adjustment i n* *•/ain.eY ^uestioned the leaalit-J
his opinion, was clearly a mattf^S1-Ferin? this matter, which in
ment. Town Attorney White resDondf^t^0^v,the State Highway Depart- the C-D District, and tit 5owf d1 d • 6 Pr0perty was locatl^l in
Mrthnregard to uses permitted under'such h^VS jurisdiction
Mr. Ramey offered a brief summarv o-f u~D Zon;Lng Regulations,
to date. Member Sager moved tha/m116 h^story of the property
and that this was9 a proper
Adjustment. Member Brown PSeconded l-bo • by the Board of
unanimously. econded the motion and it passed
Mr. Ramey was informed Section 1732n,:;na
Regulations stated driveways crossinc50Q/d'0 iT,the C"D Zoning
SSsi ™ V®alaPP'3^nUpeurs^^^ toS thJ a£rorermta„1ti0S„eraeeatccess
tandard. Planner Stamey reviewed the staff report which
17e3r050 AWO aSre^^ issues of the variance request; Section
1734 n?n n ■ L the access standard, and Section
17.54.010 B. 6 which is the general requirement addressing curb
cuts. The Town s C-D Regulations and General Requirements were
adopted in February, 1985. Inasmuch as this property has not
been used as a drive-in since February, 1985, the property does
not retain any non-conforming status. The three (3) existing
curb cuts are poorly defined; bumper blocks have been randomly
placed along Moraine Avenue; and one bumper block appears to have
been placed in the public right-of-way. No correspondence was
received. In rebuttal, Mr. Ramey stated that in initial
application to the State Highway Department the Department did
not require installation of curb and gutter; rather cement curb
stops were allowed. Mr. Ramey added installation of a curb and
gutter could adversely affect drainage in the area. Town
Engineer Widmer stated that if properly applied, a curb and
gutter would not create a drainage problem. The Board of
Trustees, by adoption of a resolution, could require a property
owner to construct a curb, gutter and sidewalk. Discussion
followed. Member Sager moved that: for this year's operation,
to grant a variance from Section 17.32.050 A to allow access from
an arterial street, with the following conditions;
1.
2.
3.
That a pedestrian way 4-5' in width parallel to Moraine
Avenue, be delineated with paint.
That the bumper blocks be properly positioned
permanently fastened to define the curb cuts.
and
That the two above items be accomplished within ten (10)
days from date of Board of Adjustment approval.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Board of Adjustment - June 25, 1986 - Page two
Member Brown seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
The Board of Adjustment also suggested that i-F e ^
solve pedestrian/vehicular conflicts that tho u ^ . d°eS n0t
should require curb, gutter and sTdewalk fn the fSSe? rUSteeS
17.54.010 B?6 addres'sing egressdand cah VaJriance from Section
ed three (3) curb cuts are^reseStlv l^ca?UJS* Ramey rePort-
is the petitioner's desire to r^ain an°n+-^ ProPerty. It
Section 17.54.010 B.6 states "TheJe than i1 hrSe CUrb CUts*
driveway openings onto anv shall be not more than two
each driveway is separated from ^.n sin9le premises unless20 or more parking fpaces... •’ drivewaYS serving
traffic; pattern, enforcement of tratt-S1°n ^o:i;lovfed regarding the
with Member Sager moving the Board nf0 atie-St:+.:LCt;i'0ns and signage,
ance request for three (3) ^ Adl?ustment deny the vari-
two (2) curb cuts on the propertv %oS.' .thus/ilowing a total of
^^becker seconded the .notion and Vt passed uiaSmoSiy!"1' Men*er
bJetheS 0uUntdde°0rSpeeac:Ul3 4rviaew P1|uchr St?Iney advised this
he Planning Connnission and Boarl'of Trustees16" 1S oonsidared
ANTHONY RICCIARDT
SazawORUlMb blll..nTMt SPEH flVRNnE - STRIIPTnp^ ALTPRSi'tom ■
^r* Anthony Ricci a
the6 southeast fr°”
“-7- side sAeatttc\0n- ^t-cture6 ??
proposed addition111 thf westerly corner fc?hforming due to a
re^aen5:verd.StaS|j;berrir0d the tep“ht reS4uniCr6e;entTsh!
Member Brown secondeaamSt0hne rtfontahn6d
HABER CENtrd lln _ passed unanimously77........ • lin-nfi WE.qm
---------------ALTERATTOM
Mr. Roger Thoro v
P®titione.f^^^SJ^*eJ^J^^t^e^borpn^larifiel^ne^, Pte.ented the Haber
Installation of a^^S telief from Section ?,r®quest stating thi
fxit would greatlv imXlt S6rvicing the s„i„7',68'070 to allow the
rnstallation Sf yri"pr0ve pntron saSv M Stori'- A second
ThoeCtanCy of the huhi7rt,7tairway would YnotMri„Th0rp stated that
Thorp pointed one dmg, nor would .e increase the i.e
|econd stairway Mr.npni5ef uses that cou^^^ the setback Nr
th^”36^ Kaithn‘Fa-'ctai1ePfhRHuablery'KrerK' ^nf°tm0ed0UtrheWi“°“t tha
“.“S-SvVi'srs,'*™? KE.£fs;j’;K
="*"■ “s;the afo ® 0n of tarianoL cion 17-72.040 i R Mei"ber Sager
doJioeding"Sgr"-orni\ee1^i'detS^
Sa?er- Th°se vc,:tingh<"No" VMei^ers"^ b'™0j,^ai^et^dBrown)aSLedU^yt
-te being no further businet th ter a"d Laln" ^
' e me®ting adjourned.