Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 23 1979 CM Board of Appeals CITY BOARD OF APPEALS January 23, 1979 Minutes of the recessed meeting of January 16 of the Board of Appeals held in the city municipal building, January 23, 1979. Meeting called to order at 7:12 p.m. by Chairman Boyd L. Bullmer. Present: Chairman Boyd L. Fullmer~ Board members Dwain A. Kinghorn, LeRoy S. '"Quick, ex-officio member Danny R. Stuart and alternate member John O. Cotant, Jr., Attorney Donald L. Burnett, Jr. Board member Earl L. Romriell abstained from p~rticipating on the board because of a personal interest in the matter. Chairman Fullmer asked for any additions or corrections of minutes of the Board of Appeals meeting, January 16, 1979. Councilman Kinghorn moved to approve the minutes of the Board of Appeals meeting of January 16, 1979. Mayor Cotant seconded motion. Voting was unanimous in favor of motion. ROMRIELL DENTAL CLINIC APPEAL Chairman Fullmer read the easement and agreement made between Gregory and Leslie Romriell, Dwight and Denise Romriell and Victor and Dalane Herbert. Mr. Kinghorn asked the Romriells if they had found out the fire protection quality of the glass in their windows. Gregory Romriell told Mr. Kinghorn that the glass is not tempered glass. A discussion followed concerning replacing the present standard glass in the dental building windows with tempered glass. Mr. Gregory Romriell stated the cost for replacing the present glass with the tempered glass would be $700.00. Mr. Kinghorn asked Mr. Dan Stuart at what point in time of the construction of this building was it discovered that the windows were there in the building and that they shouldn't be. Mr. Stuart said that it was December 20, at the time of the framing inspection. Mr. Kinghorn brought it to the attention of those present that the building would be combination frame with stucco. Building Inspector Dan Stuart informed the board that he had requested the plans be sent back to the architect to revise the present plans to reflect the change from the cinder block to the stucco building so that he might be able to inspect the completion of the building, and so that the architect can review for compliance of construction with one-hour fire wall requirements. Mr. Stuart saif if Tom Myers, architect, redesigns the wall structure to conform with the one-hour fire wall, then he will have plans to check the construction with. Earl Romriell questioned building inspector Dan Stuart about the requirement of a plot plan. Mr. Stuart said since this was an addition to the first building, he had used the original plot plan, scaling the new addition on the former plot plan, which whould have left 15 foot side lot on the south of the building. Mr. Earl Romreill asked Mr. Stuart if he did not know the building would be on the property line when the footings were poured and Mr. Stuart answered~ yes, that he did know when the footings were poured. Mr. Earl Romriell asked Mr. Stuart if he had not approved the foundation With the windows in it. Mr. Stuart said that he had approved the foundation but 'thatl he believed the concrete still had the panels on as he did not see the windows, that when the plans were submitted there were no basementl windows shown. Mr. Gregory Romriell reminded Mr. Stuart that he was bY th~ buildinq m&nv. times before he signed off the framing inspection and shouted nave Deen aware oT ~ne Dasemen~ winoows. BOARD OF APPEALS - Page 2 January 23, 1979 Mr. Stuart said he became aware of the problem, as a problem, at the time he talked to Vic Herbert, the adjoining property owner. Mr. Earl Romriell said nothing was brought to their attention until this point of any problem on the building Mr. Romriell asked Mr. Stuart if he felt the Romreill boys had tried to pull anything on him and had they cooperated in anything he had asked them to do. Mr. Stuart said that he did not feel they had tried to pull anything and that he hoped they did not feel that he was trying to get them. Mr. Earl Romriell asked Mr. Stuart if he inspected on invitation of if he felt he has the responsibility to try to get the best building he can get. Mr. Stuart said that he inspected on invitation and that there are four different inspections required and when called on these inspections he does them. Mr. Earl Romriell said the building had been under construction four or five months and asked Mr. Stuart that since he didn't know there was a problem, did he expect them to know there was a problem. Mr. Stuart said that he did not expect them to know but he felt it was his obligation under city code, which is the law, if he finds there is a mistake, it has to be corrected, he can't just ignore it hoping that it will go away and nobody else will notice it. Mr. Earl Romriell told Mr. Stuart that he had known all along since they poured the footings that they were on the line, why Mr. Stuart brought up the plot plan he is not sure, but that they don't recognize that plot plan because they did not introduce that plot plan and was not their plot plan, that Mr. Stuart drew it, they did not draw it. Mr. Stuart said it was an existing plot plan on file. Mr. Romriell asked how Mr. Stuart would know what they were going to put on there if they didn't draw it on a plot plan. Mr. Stuart said that he had a set of building drawings that had the e~isting building and]addition Of the new building, they were side by side with dimensions. Mr. Romriell said that Mr. Stuart had used the original plot plan that a mistake had been made on, and Dan reused this plot plan when he shouldn't have done~ Mr. Romriell said he had made the mistake on first plot plan and Dan made a mistake by using the same plot plan. Mr. Romriell said there has been considerable expense in regards to this mistake, that Dan knew there were windows in the upstairs building and that the building was on the lot line. Mr. Stuart said that he did know this, but that it didn't register with him that there had been any difference from what the plot plan, which he added onto, and the building plans which he had approved when he issued the building permit, were. '- Mr. Earl Romriell said he contends there is no violation, if there is a violation, it is Mr. Stuart's fault. Mr. Romriell read from page 97, Chapter 16, Restrictions in Fire Zones, Uniform Building code. Mr. Romriell then added the city has no record of fire zones and they had been cited from Table SA, Page 56, UBC, concerning fire zones. BOARD OF APPEALS - Page 3 January 23, 1979 Mr. [6Roy Quick asked Attorney Burnett for his legal opinion on any enforcement of fire zones where the city has not adopted fire zones. Attorney Burnett said that the code poses an awkward problem in terms' of interpretation. There is two possible interpretations, one of them is that since the code requires any reference to a fire zone to in- corporate another ordinance, such other ordinance not having been passed that any regulation that incorporates a fire zone is simply void. The other interpretration, would be based upon a doctrine which is well accepted by the courts and that is, the legisl~ative body is never deemed to have done a void act, unless there is no alternative construction available~ or no alternative interpretation available. In this case the alternative interpretation would be that since Fire Zone refers to any building or structure complying with the requirements of this code, that therefore the entire city is Fire Zone 3. So those are the two competing interpretations, and in all due regard to the point that Earl is making, if I were asked to my opinion which argument I would feel more comfortable with, I would feel more comfortable arguing that the city council has never deemed to have done a void act and therefore the entire city is within Fire Zone 3 and therefore the regulations applies that are Fire Zone 3. Mr. Stuart, presented Ordinance #66, adopted in 1965, Attorney Burnett said ordinance does create a fire district, adopting fire zones by map. Ordinance is valid if the city can find a map, if we can't find the map, the mere existence of the ordinance lends strength to the argument that the city would be in Fire Zone 3. Attorney Burnett said that Earl has called our attention to an important part of the code and that the city should take some action to remedy this so it doesn't come up in the future. In further discussion, Vic Herbert said he felt that the Romriells should be required to construct their building so as to make it safe for future buildings upon his property, in other words, that the building should be built with the one-hour fire wall construction. Mayor Cotant of the appeals board commented he felt the one-hour fire wall should be constructed for the safety of the concerned adjoining property owner, Mr. Herbert. Chairman Fullmer told the board the easement and agreement has been presented to the Board of Appeals and has been reviewed by Attorney Burnett and approved in form, and asked what else were their desires. Mr. Stuart said that with the five foot separation and a one-hour fire wall compliance the building could be accepted and asked the board if the city wants to require the one-hour fire wall or grant variance for dental building to finish construction without the one-hour fi~e wall construction. Gregory Romriell said that he did not want to have wire on the windows in the building, that the window provides for a visual escape for the patient and if you put bars or screen on that window, he is not able to escape, he is trapped in that chair and a mental escape is very improtant, and that aspect of the window would be defeating the escape by putting the screen on it. BOARD OF APPEALS - Page 4 January 23, 1979 Mr. Quick stated he felt the city should uphold the statutes as is stipulated on a minimum basis of the one-hour fire wall. Mayor Cotant made motion that with the recorded five foot easement and agreement between the Romri611s and Herberts and the meeting of the one-hour fire wall construction, that the board of appeals grant the variance. Dan Stuart seconded motion. The vote was unanimous in favor of motion. The Board of Appeals meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Danny~R. Stuar .~ Sdcretary Minutes recorde~ by Vera Armstrong. B~oyd [~t Fullm~r, Chairman