Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesBOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES April 14, 2010 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Jane Cryan, Dennis Penney, Mark Nielsen (late), Ed Wilusz, Cheryl Hentz EXCUSED: None STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Associate Planner /Zoning Administrator; John Zarate, Building Inspector; Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary Chairperson Cornell called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of March 10, 2010 were approved as presented. Carpenter/Hentz 4 -0 -1. (Abstained - Hentz. Not present for March meeting.) ITEM I: 1308 W. NEW YORK AVENUE Del Tritt - applicant, Ridgeview Investments LLC- owner, request variances to permit a single family residence to exceed the maximum driveway width and to establish a 24' x 30' uncovered off - street parking in the front yard. Additionally, a variance is requested to permit a patio within the required side yard setback. Section 30 -36 (13)(1)(c) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: Off - Street Parking Facilities requires the maximum driveway width to not exceed 12' where no garage exists, Section 30 -36 (D)(2)(a): Off - Street Parking Facilities requires open parking areas to provide a front yard setback no less than the setback of the front facade of the principal structure, and Section 30 -35 (13)(2)(d) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: Additional Standards requires a 2' side yard setback for uncovered patios. Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He commented that the owner purchased the property in 2009 and is in the process of extensively remodeling the interior of the structure and is proposing various site improvements to the exterior that require variances. The proposed paved off - street parking area would be located in the same place where an existing gravel parking area is currently on site and the proposed patio would intrude 2' into the required side yard setback. A justifiable hardship is present in this case as the parcel's unique configuration, principal structure placement, and limited rear and side yard areas preclude feasible placement alternatives for improvements within setbacks. The applicant is also proposing a 24 1.f. of 6' solid board fencing along the north lot line to screen the proposed patio from the property to the north. Mr. Penney questioned what the dimensions would be for the patio area. Del Tritt, 6228 County Road N, Pickett, petitioner for the request, responded that he had revised his plan to exclude the addition of the patio area and was proposing to place a concrete area for storage of garbage cans and a step for the back porch in that location instead. The proposed fencing would remain. Mr. Wilusz inquired how many curb cuts existed on the subject site. Mr. Tritt replied that there was only one curb cut. Board of Appeals Minutes 1 April 14, 2010 Ms. Cryan questioned why the parking area could not be located on the east side of the parcel. Mr. Tritt explained that if the parking area was relocated to the east side, it would create a situation that would require stacked parking of vehicles in the driveway. This would result in vehicles having to back out onto W. New York Avenue on a frequent basis creating an unsafe situation. Mr. Penney asked if the gravel area would be paved with concrete. Mr. Tritt responded that the paving would be constructed with an asphalt surface. Mr. Cornell inquired if there would be plantings around the foundation. Mr. Tritt replied that there were some existing plantings on site but they would be enhanced. Roger Rose, 1302 W. New York Avenue, questioned the reasoning for the installation of the fencing. Mr. Tritt responded that the fence was for the purpose of screening the driveway to the garage and the garbage receptacles and that there would be no fencing located on the east side of the property adjacent to Mr. Rose's property. Mr. Rose then questioned if the fencing would be 24' long and 6' high. Mr. Tritt replied that was his initial proposal but it could be reduced to 16' as that would be more practical. Mr. Muehrer stated that the fence was not an issue at this hearing as it was allowed by city ordinance and no variance was necessary for the placement of the fencing. Mr. Rose commented that he would be in favor of the driveway area being constructed with concrete instead of asphalt. Ms. Hentz questioned why Mr. Rose was objecting to the asphalt paving. Mr. Rose responded that he felt it was easier to shovel concrete than asphalt. Ms. Hentz stated that a motion would be required to change the proposed fence from 24' to 16'. Mr. Muehrer commented that no action would be required regarding the fencing as it is not an issue with the variance request. Mr. Wilusz questioned if the board was required to deny the portion of the request regarding the patio as the petitioner was withdrawing that aspect of the variance request. Mr. Muehrer replied that the minutes would reflect that the request for the placement of the patio has been withdrawn so no action would be required when a motion was made for the variance request. Mr. Penney inquired if the term "paving" meant it was required to be constructed of cement. Mr. Muehrer responded that the zoning ordinance recognized both concrete and asphalt as an acceptable paving material. Board of Appeals Minutes 2 April 14, 2010 Motion by Hentz to approve the request for a variance to permit a single family residence to exceed the maximum driveway width and to establish a 24' x 30' uncovered off - street parking in the front yard. Seconded by Carpenter. Motion carried 5 -0. Finding of Facts: The parcel is a unique lot. No adverse impact. Safer for the public. ITEM II: 207 S. SAWYER STREET David Schettle, owner, is requesting a variance to the City of Oshkosh 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 equivalent degree of health, safety and welfare is proposed. All appeals shall be accompanied by supporting data. This appeal is to allow for a modification and an expansion of an existing stairway without providing the required headroom of 76" at the intermediate landing. Comm 21.04(2)(d) requires that a minimum headroom of 76" (6' -4 ") be maintained for the entire stairway. The headroom also is required to be provided for the minimum width of the stairway which is 3'. John Zarate presented the item and stated that the City of Oshkosh adopts the State of Wisconsin Uniform Dwelling Code to apply to alterations and additions to one and two family homes in existence prior to the effective date of this code. The variance is required for the construction of a new stairway to the second floor for which a building permit was issued on February 19, 2010. Mr. Zarate reviewed the details of the staff report and commented that there was conflict in whether the stairway was reconstructed within the same stairwell opening and that the owner did not want to conform to the current building standards as it would require significant structural modifications to the roof and use up too much space on the first floor. Jeff Schettle, 3251 Old Orchard Lane, distributed enlarged building plans and photos of himself standing on the stairways of both the old and newly constructed stairway. He also explained the differences between the layout and height of both stairways and stated that he felt that the stairway was reconstructed within the same stairwell opening therefore it should be allowed as it would fall under a portion of municipal code which provides for reconstruction of stairways in existence prior to June 1, 1980 providing they are rebuilt within the same stairwell opening. He further explained that the landing had been lowered to increase the amount of headroom and the outside of the stairway on the second landing was the only area that may be an issue with a lack of headroom. Ms. Hentz commented that it appeared there was a difference in opinion between the inspector and the petitioner as to whether the stairway was reconstructed in the same opening. There was further discussion on if the stairway had been rebuilt within the same stairwell opening and the modifications made constructing the new stairway as compared to the layout of the original one. It was determined that the newly constructed stairs were less steep and the second landing was relocated however the difference in opinion still remained whether the new stairway was constructed in the same opening. Mr. Wilusz asked for clarification of the building drawings submitted. Board of Appeals Minutes 3 April 14, 2010 Mr. Schettle further explained the construction drawings and the amount of headroom provided both on the steps and landings. He commented that part of the stairway was code compliant other than 18 inches on the top landing and 9 inches on the lower landing with the deficit being on the outside of the stairway, not on the inside where the handrail is located. Mr. Carpenter questioned if the petitioner felt that changing the stairway to meet code requirements was creating a hardship. Mr. Schettle responded that to remedy the situation would involve a lot of time and work to gain the few inches that are necessary to make the stairway code compliant. It is a very old home and the work to increase this small amount of headroom would be significant. Mr. Wilusz asked for clarification of the variance request standards for building code variances in regard to "providing an equivalent degree of health, safety and welfare ". Mr. Zarate replied that the variance could be granted if the board felt that the situation would provide an equivalent degree of safety as it would if the stairway met code requirements. From the perspective of the Inspections Department, they cannot approve work that it not code compliant, and the decision would have to be determined by the board members. Mr. Penney questioned why the variance was not applied for until after the work had been completed. Mr. Schettle responded that they had obtained a building permit but the problems arose with the addition to the house and once he was made aware that a variance may be possible to obtain, he decided to pursue it. He further stated that they could have sold the house in its original state, but the reconstruction of the stairway was an improvement to the present condition that existed and major structural changes would be required to make the stairway code compliant. Mr. Penney commented that expense to the petitioner could not be considered when granting a variance. Discussion continued on whether the stairway was reconstructed within the same stairwell opening, if the exception to the code for stairways rebuilt in the same opening would apply, and if the plans submitted for the building permit were accurate or modified when constructed. The petitioner contended that the plans were not altered after the issuance of the permit and the dormer over the top had not yet been completed. The inspector claimed that the stairway headroom plans were not provided at the time the permit was issued. Further discussion on which parts of the stairway were not code compliant and the number of inches necessary to meet code, the age of the home, and the complications involved to make the stairway compliant without the granting of a variance. It was concluded that although complicated and costly, the stairway could feasibly be constructed to meet current code standards. There was also discussion on the fact that staff was correctly performing their duties by denying approval of the plans for lack of code compliancy however it appeared that the reconstructed stairway was safer than the condition that existed prior. There was not consensus on whether the stairway was reconstructed in the same opening although there was understanding that remodeling in a 110 year old home was complicated and some board members felt that even though the stairway did not meet current code requirements, it was safer than the conditions that existed prior to the reconstruction. Motion by Hentz to approve the request for a variance to permit a modification and an expansion of an existing stairway without providing the required headroom of 76" at the intermediate landing. Seconded by Penney. Motion carried 3 -2. Ayes - Carpenter /Penney /Hentz. Nays- Cornell/Wilusz. Board of Appeals Minutes 4 April 14, 2010 Finding of Facts: It is a unique situation. The age of the home. Condition of stairway safer than what previously existed. Ms. Hentz excused herself from the meeting at 4:20 pm. ITEM III: 1225 JEFFERSON STREET Gary Dietenberger & Anne Sanfelippo- applicant /owner, request a variance to permit a 6' high solid wood fence with a 0' front yard setback. Section 30 -35 (E)(3) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: Additional Standards and Exceptions requires fences 6' high to be erected on those parts of a lot that area as far back or farther back from a front property line than the principal structure. Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He explained that the petitioner was requesting the fence for privacy and safety purposes and that the property was unique in that it fronts two road right -of -ways and therefore possesses two front yards by zoning ordinance definition. He also explained that it would have no adverse effect on surrounding properties because there are no driveways fronting the east side of Harrison Street so the fence would not create any sight or safety issues for vehicular or pedestrian traffic and Jefferson Street is a one -way street with adequate distance between the intersection and the proposed fencing. He further stated that the property is unique and a justifiable hardship exists with the current parcel configuration. Mr. Cornell stated that the map showing the location of the fence was difficult to read and asked the petitioner to clarify its location. Ms. Sanfelippo explained that the fence would be going from the right corner of the garage back and Mr. Dietenberger displayed the location on the site plan. Mr. Penney asked if the house faced Jefferson Street. Ms. Sanfelippo responded affirmatively. Motion by Wilusz to approve the request for a variance to permit a 6' high solid wood fence with a 0 ' front yard setback. Seconded by Carpenter. Motion carried 5 -0. Finding of Facts: No safety issues. The parcel is a unique lot. Ms. Hentz returned to the meeting at 4: 30 pm. Board of Appeals Minutes 5 April 14, 2010 ITEM IV: 3110 KNAPP STREET Steve Taylor, EAA- applicant, Winnebago County- owner, request a variance to permit a proposed garage and concrete slab with a 20' front yard setback. Section 30 -30 (13)(1) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: M -3 General Industrial District requires a 30' minimum front yard setback. Mr. Muehrer presented the item and stated that he was not able to obtain photos of the subject site prior to today's meeting. He explained that the variance was being requested because W. Waukau Avenue has restricted access east of Knapp Street and the proposed new structures would be too close to the existing air traffic control tower if built at the required 30' front yard setback. The variance, if granted, would not have an adverse effect on surrounding properties as they are all owned by Winnebago County and developed in conjunction with the airport facilities. He further stated that a justifiable hardship existed as the proposed structures could not be adequately accessed due to the location of the air traffic control tower. He also noted that while the zoning ordinance may technically define the area in question as a front yard, the practical use of the area is side yard in nature. Steve Taylor, 3000 Poberezny Road, petitioner for the request, stated that he was present for any questions regarding this request. There was no discussion on this item. Motion by Hentz to approve the request for a variance to permit a proposed garage and concrete slab with a 20' front yard setback. Seconded by Penney. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of Facts: It is a unique situation. A hardship would be created if variance denied. No adverse impact on adjacent properties. DISCUSSION OF BOA PROCEDURES Ms. Hentz stated that at January's meeting, there was discussion on issues that can or cannot be discussed under this portion of the agenda. Mr. Muehrer reviewed the matter with the City Attorney Lynn Lorenson who informed the board that matters that are not specifically noted on the agenda cannot be randomly discussed. Ms. Hentz contacted the State Attorney General's office regarding the matter who felt we were being overly cautious. She was informed that particular properties could not be discussed without notice however city codes or other general conversation should be allowed. Board members briefly discussed the process of requesting specific items to be placed on the agenda for conversation and other details regarding disclosure matters. Mr. Muehrer stated that Attorney Lorenson was not able to be present today as she had other obligations at this time but he would let her know about the discussion and see if she could make arrangements to attend a future meeting. He inquired about the name of the individual at the Attorney General's office who provided Ms. Hentz with this advice. Ms. Hentz replied that the party's last name was Olsen and that his assistant's name was Amanda. Board of Appeals Minutes 6 April 14, 2010 It was decided to place this item back on the agenda for May for clarification if the City Attorney could be present for discussion of the matter. Ms. Hentz stated that the wording on this portion of the agenda stating "Discussion of BOA Procedures" was not entirely accurate and she would like to further discuss the matter when the Procedures and Regulations for the Board of Appeals are reviewed in June. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m. (Wilusz/Hentz). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner /Zoning Administrator Board of Appeals Minutes 7 April 14, 2010