Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD OF APPEALS ~ City of Oshkosh Dept. of Commonity Development City Hall 215 Church Ave., PO Box 1130 Oshkosh, WI 54903 (920) 236-5059 BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA DECEMBER 8, 2004 3:30 PM To Whom It May Concern: PLEASE NOTE the City of Oshkosh Board of Appeals will meet on WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2004 at 3:30 PM in Room 404 at the Oshkosh City Hall to consider the following agenda. ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 27,2004 MINUTES I: 1449 KNAPP ST. Valerie Zapolsky, owner and applicant, is requesting variances to the City's Building Code. Variance Reqnest #1 is to allow the use of a horizontal, trap style door to serve as the stairwell enclosure whereas Oshkosh Municipal Code Section 7-34(B)(2) adopting the State Uniform Dwelling Code Section COMM 21.04(4) does not contain provisions to allow the use of a horizontal, trap style door. Variance Request # 2 is to allow the use of a discontinuous handrail (one that has a break between the top and bottom of the stairs) and allow this handrail to stop short of the upper most tread nosing. Whereas Oshkosh Municipal Code Section 7-34(B)(2) adopting the State Uniform Dwelling Code Section COMM 21.04(3)(b )6. requires the handrails to be continuous from the upper nosing to the lower nosing. OTHER BUSINESS Board discussion items: rental property turnover, zoning enforcement practices, and board procedures. ADJOURNMENT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THE PLANNING SERVICES DIVISION AT (920) 236-5059, BETWEEN 8 AM -4:30 PM, MONDAYTHRU FRIDAY , BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES DECEMBER 8, 2004 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Larry Lang, Meredith Scheuermann, Edward Wilusz, and Cheryl Hentz, Chairperson EXCUSED: Donald Pressley STAFF: Matt Tucker, Associate Planner; and Vickie Rand, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Hentz. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. Minutes ofthe October 27,2004 meeting were approved as mailed (Cornell / Lang). Unanimous. I: 1449 KNAPP STREET Valerie Zapolsky, owner, is requesting variances to the City's Building Code. Per Oshkosh Building Code Section 7-33, persons may file an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals as provided in the City Zoning Ordinance, Section30-6(B)(2)(a) if an equally good or better form of construction is proposed. All appeals shall be accompanied by supporting data. VARIANCE REQUEST #1 Allow the use of a horizontal, trap style door to serve as the stairwell enclosure whereas Oshkosh Municipal Code Section 7-34(B)(2) adopting the State Uniform Dwelling Code Section COMM 21.04(4) does not contain provisions to allow the use of a horizontal, trap style door. Allyn Dannhoff, Director ofInspection Services, introduced the item and reviewed the variance request previously received and conditions included at that time to allow the conversion of the attic (3rd) floor habitable space with one code compliant exit. He proceeded to discuss the use of a horizontal, trap style door to serve as the stairwell enclosure. Mr. Wilusz questioned if the Fire Department has approved the variance request. Mr. Dannhoff stated the Fire Department does not get involved with single family home requests, but relies on the expertise of the Inspection Services Department. Mr. Lang questioned if this variance had been in front of this committee before. Mr. Dannhoff stated it had been approved in the past with conditions, however, there was a misinterpretation of the conditions applied to the approval between the homeowner and the Building Inspectors. Mr. Carpenter questioned the size of the egress window and if it was in compliance. Mr. Dannhoff stated he believed it was 20" x 24" and in compliance. Mrs. Zapolsky stated the window was double hung and the entire window comes out easily. Mr. Cornell noted that obviously a building permit was taken out and questioned if a follow up inspection had been done. Mrs. Zapolsky, 1449 Knapp Street, stated the contractor had handled the insulation and electrical inspectors and any others that had been in following completion of each section. j Board of Appeals Minutes - 2 - December 8, 2004 Mrs. Zapolsky stated the reason for the request today was because they had the construction done in the manner they had interpreted the conditions, which was different from what was actually intended. She stated the main concern was not to have bedrooms constructed in the 3rd floor attic area. She stated the horizontal trap style door seals tight and is easy to open and close. VARIANCE REQUEST #2 Allow the use of a discontinuous handrail (one that has a break between the top and bottom of the stairs) and allow this handrail to stop short of the upper most tread nosing. Whereas, Oshkosh Municipal Code Section 7-34(B)(2) adopting the State Uniform Dwelling Code Section COMM 2l.04(3)(b)6 requires the handrails to be continuous from the upper nosing to the lower nosing. Mr. Dannhoff explained how the handrail was actually mounted to the door. He stated the code doesn't recognize a situation such as this and explained how this would be acceptable without two compliant stairwells. Mrs. Zaplosky stated the stairwell was already finished to the unfinished attic and didn't think of building a door or handrail. Mr. Dannhoff stated that even if the stairwell hadn't been installed they would have realized they needed to have a break in the handrail in order for the door to close. Mr. Cornell stated there would be a financial hardship for the owner if the variance weren't granted in order to reconfigure the area into its prior state Mr. Dannhoff explained the steps that would need to be taken to return the entire area to its prior state. Chairperson Hentz questioned if there was a recommendation for the handrail, as she didn't see any in the Staff Report. Mr. Dannhoff stated he recommended approval for both variance requests with conditions for variance #1 as noted in the Staff Report. Chairperson Hentz clarified that the board would be voting on both variances as one motion, since they are interrelated. Motion by Lang for approval ofthe variances as proposed. Seconded by Wilusz. Motion by Wilusz to amend the original motion to include the condition as recommended by staff for Variance Request #1 as follows: 1. Tbe horizontal, trap door must be provided with a latch system capable of keeping the door closed, resisting pressures and airflows that can be caused by rising heat from a fire. This latch must be able to be readily opened from both sides of the door without the use of tools. Board of Appeals Minutes -3- December 8, 2004 Amendment Seconded by Cornell. Amendment approved 5-0. Motion by Cornell to approve the variances as amended. Seconded by Lang. Motion carried 4-1. Nay: Lang Mr. Lang stated the reason he voted against these variance requests is that he didn't feel there was enough empirical evidence presented to prove this was a good or better form of construction, and didn't want to be responsible for a misinterpretation ofthe building code. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Tucker stated there was a request made at the last meeting in October for discussion and documentation regarding rental property turnovers, zoning enforcement practices, and board procedures, and he invited City Attorney Warren Kraft to join the discussion. Chairperson Hentz turned the discussion over to Mr. Lang at this time. Mr. Lang reviewed the handout that was passed out earlier (on file in the Planning Services Office) stating with the turnover oftenants in apartment housing, especially in the University area and older neighborhoods there appears to be inadequate parking (i.e. Woodland Avenue college housing) with 4 cars and only 3 parking stalls to accommodate the tenants. Mr. Lang stated he didn't have a solution to this problem and noted it also has a negative effect on property values. He stated the real issue is compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Lang proceeded to explain "challenged" rental units and stated he would like to see the landlord be responsible for a parking policy to be given to tenants and see it is enforced. Chairperson Hentz asked Attorney Kraft to address Mr. Lang's concerns at this time. Attorney Kraft stated the Board of Appeals is a quasi board, whose powers only come from items brought forth by application, and what Mr. Lang is proposing is the creation of policies. Attorney Kraft stated The Board should take or forward these requests to the Plan Commission, and on to City Council, as they are the policy making side of the City's system of government. He stated the issues should be identified as they apply to the zoning code and notation should be made as to why there are so many variance requests of this type and why they keep coming back when a property changes ownership. Attorney Kraft advised that it needs to be explained to the Plan Commission and City Council that the tools the Board of Appeals has to work with at this time are not enough to adequately do the job. Discussion followed regarding the on-going process of revising the Zoning Ordinance, and the ability to bring concerns or recommendations in front of the Plan Commission, Common Council, to the Mayor, Police or any other department that may be of help. 5. Board of Appeals Minutes - 4- December 8, 2004 Mr. Tucker noted that the enforcement process could be very complicated. Mr. Carpenter stated manpower is an issue and discussion followed regarding the levels of enforcement. Mr. Tucker also noted that steps might have already been taken to enforce a particular situation, giving the owner a time frame in which to comply, that the private citizen or the Board is not aware of. Attorney Kraft explained that as a variance is requested staff will make a recommendation based on the Zoning Ordinance. He stated the board member must then make a decision based on what is presented at the meeting by staff and owners. He also stated if a board member makes a decision based on a visit they have made to the site they must share that information with everyone at the meeting. Mrs. Scheuermann questioned if a site visit was allowed. Attorney Kraft stated a visit to the site is allowed as long as board members share anything they may have learned from that site visit before the petitioner/owner speaks. He stated it is the Petitioner's constitutional right to know what has been seen and what has been decided by facts derived from a site visit. Mrs. Scheuermann questioned if they need to discuss the visit they made to a site if they have not yet made a decision. Attorney Kraft stated they need to share information up front. He explained if a case were to go to court, the owner has the right to appeal and have that board member put up on the witness stand to testify. Mr. Cornell questioned if it was better not to visit the site as there wouldn't be any bias. Attorney Kraft gave an example of jurors being able to set their opinions aside and make a fair decision when they have prior knowledge of the case. He stated if someone looked at a site they must share that information. Mrs. Scheuermann questioned why Mr. Lang should take his proposal to the Plan Commission. Attorney Kraft stated this is an enforcement issue and it needs to be handled administratively. Chairperson Hentz stated Mr. Lang could therefore contact the Plan Commission, the Common Councilor any other level of enforcement he may choose. She also questioned if fees for violations are set by the State. Attorney Kraft stated the Common Council sets fees for City violations. Chairperson Hentz questioned how a landlord policy could be developed. Mr. Tucker stated Zoning Ordinance language could be drafted to address that issue. Attorney Kraft noted Mr. Tucker could address Mr. Lang's proposal and concerns internally. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:43 p.m. Carpenter / Cornell. Unanimous. Respectfully Submitted, MATT TUCKER Associate Planner MWT/vlr STAFF REPORT BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 8, 2004 ITEM I: 1449 Knapp St GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND Valerie Zapolsky, owner, is requesting variances to the City's Building Code. Per Oshkosh Building Code Section 7-33, persons may file an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals as provided in the City Zoning Ordinance, Section 30-6(B)(2)(a) if an equally good or better form of construction is proposed. All appeals shall be accompanied by supporting data. The City of Oshkosh adopts the State of Wisconsin Uniform Dwelling Code to apply to all housing stock in the City. This code applies to all new 1&2 Family Dwellings built since June 1, 1980. The City of Oshkosh adopts this code with some exceptions to apply to existing housing stock to maintain a level of consistency throughout the City. Previously, a variance was granted to this property to allow the conversion of the attic (3rd floor) into habitable space with one code compliant exit, whereas the adopted Building Code requires two exits. This variance was approved with the following conditions: 1. Installation of the proposed collapsable, self contained fire escape ladder to be accessed by an egress window that complies with present day code at the NW corner ofthe third floor. This ladder would provide egress access from the 3rd floor attic area down to grade. This ladder must be installed according to manufacturer's specifications. 2. Installation of an interconnected, hardwired smoke detection system with battery back up, with detectors provided in the following locations: a. In the finished attic area. (If there are separate unfinished rooms, each must be provided with smoke detection.) b. On each floor level below the attic in locations required by the present code. 3. The existing stairs is provided with a stair enclosure at the top of the stairs, so that in the event of a fire, if this exit were blocked, the door could be closed to retard the spread of fire and smoke into the third floor. This would allow more time for emergency response. 4. The third floor shall be provided with a landline phone (not a portable phone) to allow occupants the ability to call emergency services from this floor level in the event of a fire (located in a common area of this floor if subdivided into rooms.) 5. The attic area not be used for sleeping purposes or creation ofbedrooms. STAFF REPORT -2- BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 8, 2004 A recent inspection, in response to a Final Inspection request, revealed compliance with these conditions, except that the door provided by the applicant to satisfy Condition 3 is not installed to meet the building code requirements. The applicant installed a horizontal door (similar to a trap door.) The intent of Condition 3 was to install a stair enclosure (walls and a door) similar to what is typically provided at the head of a basement stairs. The Building Code has no provisions for horizontal, trap style doors for stairs that access habitable spaces. As a result the applicant is requesting a variance to allow this style of door as well as a discontinuous handrail (whereas the code requires a handrail to be continuous the full length of a stairs.) VARIANCE REQUEST #1 Allow the use of a horizontal, trap style door to serve as the stairwell enclosure whereas Oshkosh Municipal Code Section 7-34(B)(2) adopting the State Uniform Dwelling Code Section COMM 21.04(4) does not contain provisions to allow the use of a horizontal, trap style door. It is important to understand the Building Code does not require a stair enclosure at the top of a stairs leading to an occupied floor level. This was a condition placed on this property when the applicant previously requested and obtained a variance to allow one legal exit from the third floor, when the Building code requires two legal exits. The reason for this requirement was to allow the occupants of the third floor to close this door to retard the spread of smoke in the event of a fire on a lower floor, if the stairs was determined to be unsafe for exiting by the occupants. VARIANCE REQUEST #2 Allow the use of a discontinuous handrail (one that has a break between the top and bottom of the stairs) and allow this handrail to stop short of the upper most tread nosing. Whereas Oshkosh Municipal Code Section 7-34(B)(2) adopting the State Uniform Dwelling Code Section COMM 21.04(3)(b)6. requires the handrails to be continuous from the upper nosing to the lower nosing. Use of the horizontal, trap style door prevents use of a continuous handrail. If continuous, the handrail would obstruct the door from closing. The applicant has installed a handrail that is continuous from the hinge of the horizontal, trap style door to the bottom tread and has installed an additional section of handrail on the horizontal, trap style door that can be used when the door is in the open, upright position. This section of handrail cannot extend to the upper most nosing as that would require the handrail to project beyond the perimeter of the door, thus creating an obstruction when closed. -3- BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 8, 2004 STAFF REPORT ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION In reviewing a variance request, the following question should be addressed: What proposed means and rationale of providing an equivalent degree of health. safety and welfare as addressed by the section petitioned will be provided? The applicant is requesting the aforementioned variances so they would not have to install a standard stair enclosure. The applicant has expressed a desire to retain the openness of the third floor, rather than install a stair enclosure that would divide this floor into two areas visually. Installing a code compliant enclosure would cut off the northeast section of this floor from view ofthe primary open area to the south and southwest. The intent of the original variance condition is to provide a manner in which to retard the spread of smoke in the event occupants are not able to use this stair to exit due to conditions created in a fire. Thus potentially allowing additional time for rescue personnel to provide assistance and/or allowing the occupants to use the secondary fire escape that has been provided. Based upon this information, this office recommends approval with the following condition: 1. The horizontal, trap door must be provided with a latch system capable of keeping the door closed, resisting pressures and air flows that can be caused by rising heat from a fire. This latch must be able to be readily opened from both sides of the door without the use oftools. .CD R E C r!!'t\n "E ~ection Services CITY OF OSHKOSH "I.: I V ~~hurch Ave, PO Box 1130 APPLICA nON FOR BUILDING VARIANCE shkosh, WI 54902-1130 OCT 1 3 2üC4 Please write legibly with black ink and also submit all required information for the valiance. There is a $125.00 fee for each variance application. The fee is payable to the City of Oshkosh and due at the time thmfl.im'fMe!ilt~ed. NiJ~le..r~ 7..",pdh Address: \ ~ L\ ~ k...,^", Home Telephone #: ~ Ò~ - f)S-fJ <r Work Telephone #: Qe.ep"-V" ~<$"'t'-t '-t st-. Type of Building: Re.....,~;J,-13\ Building Address: It.tl.\: C\ \(~ 'St. Name of Company: Gi M C c..ov. ~ r '-' c.h~ Address of Company: <r l?-. c.. e..v...p <... ~ Ii'L. Telephone #: ~ð:2..-0ð'1~ Contact Person: o"'~ol o~ fJecXì Tc..Y\'1>~ In order to be granted a valiance, each applicant mnst be able to prove that an nnnecessary hardship would be created if the valiance is not granted. The burden of proving an nnnecessary hardship rests upon the applicant. The attached sheet provides information on what constitutes a hardship. (Attach additional sheets, if necessary, to provide the information requested. Additional information may be requested as needed.) I. State the code section being petitioned AND the specific condition or issue you are requesting be covered under this petition for vatiance.. " c.oV'l\M. .?.l.O""(~) rc.o.\J\~~ ,,^k.rI';""'O""-"'~ oloov.sb.. 3::t"W\~ 'it 00 ~\\ v . . . = , k~~..~ Vr:;.J'---~ C>~If'~ ~k> """(¡'€A"r~<¡,k ~\\"Ôf""-~ð- 6 c..cJVV'{i>~ VJ'~ ill +k <" c~Aìh~-::, ~il~ "'~ ~ (l""'ILÒÙo:> . V\.ri ~ 2. Explain the reason why compliance WI the code cannot.be attained..witljout the valiance. .. . ~ . I""",-,^ <"A~m r~1k. VOðVV'- t'Jpe-. ~~l;" ""'~ ec".'iiL\~JØ\.1 olhl-ü ~f\04 ~a:J.\'H"'\"¡':' 0. Y"'-,^,"'t\..."k..~.,....(,>-",-J.o"'\.!.e.-w~ .....'v\.o..,~\..l~\clà-.()vJ"'- <iceV' Lv ~1~ lkJe..-tN-'&w."Pf"^S "" ~ <SY'VVilQ Wó"", "-';""') \I f'\hL ~~"" ,~ ,,-~.re... .' ~ 3. State your proposed means and rationale of providing equivalent degree of health, safety, or welfare as addressed by the code section ~~tio~.,. \ ::n- Se.r~ -1'4- N '^-~. ~ \ov\.ò ,.... "-\\-~c..... V€.4- .. T Go\- -+ 1l. v.,¡",:) lN~ V\.~ \'- u:s..t.. S;:t) ì,~ ì'\ ru>\- f>V'ðv-A. h. W c:t,~c..'o~ 4. List ~l~ac~~e~~i~ p~ of the petitioners statements (i.e. model code sections, test reports, research articles, expert opinions, previously approved vatiances, pictures, plans, sketches, etc.). f>ore...vl.OcJ:> '¡c.-..V"'ðo!-...<.~..J\(ÖV'oo.... ^^"'JIISì:Loo::s. ~~~~-bhj., ~ ¿~~2 q¡~1"Y NOTE: .The petitioner must be the owner of the building or project. Tenants, agents, designers, contractors, attorneys, etc., shall not sign unless Power of Attorney is submitted with the Petition for Valiance Application. I state as petitioner that I have read the foregoing petition and I believe it is true and that I have significant ownership rights to the subject building or project. ~~ / petitioner'~re)