Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 2005 PRESENT: Robert Cornell, Dennis Penney, Larry Lang, Vice Chairman and Cheryl Hentz, Chairman EXCUSED: Dan Carpenter, Moss Ruedinger, and Edward Wilusz STAFF: David Buck, Associate Planner, Allyn Dannhoff, Director of Inspection Services and Patty LaCombe, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hentz. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. Motion by Mr. Cornell for approval of August 28, 2005 minutes. Seconded by Mr. Penney. Discussion to withdraw motions and table the minutes until the tape can be reviewed. Mr. Cornell withdrew the motion to approve the minutes of August 28, 2005. Motion by Mr. Lang to lay over the August 28, 2005 minutes until he can have a chance to review the tape. Seconded by Mr. Cornell. Unanimous. I: 630 BOYD STREET The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the replacement of front porch guardrails to match the height of the former guardrails. The former guardrails were less than 30” in height (the exact height requested was not provided on the Variance Application) whereas the adopted code requires 36” tall guardrails. Allyn Dannhoff, Director of Inspection Services, introduced the item. Mr. Dannhoff stated the City of Oshkosh does adopt an exception to the guardrail height requirement for single family and two family structures that qualify as a historic building as defined in our municipal code. The City of Oshkosh is not unique in adopting the present building code to replacement, repairs and rebuilding of existing elements of a house. Mr. Lang asked if the existing handrails could be reused. Mr. Dannhoff stated existing guardrails are allowed to be repaired to the extent allowed by the aforementioned exception. The local building code states when 50 percent or more of the guardrail on a level require repair, that is then deemed a replacement thus requiring compliance of the present code. Mr. Penney asked if there is a structural reason that they could not go 36”. Mr. Dannhoff stated the petitioner petitioner is making use of the connection points to the siding and same attachment points on the stone columns that only come up to less than 30”. If they go to 36” they will have to connect the top rail to the column that is above the stone. Mr. Penney then asked what if they built the guardrail at 30” instead of 36”. Mr. Dannhoff stated they probably would still have to attach the handrail to the column and siding. Chuck Williams, PO Box 1336 Oshkosh, WI, Attorney for David Bedore, passed photos around and stated they would like to have the guardrail at 30” instead of 36”. 36” would put the guardrail attachment over the top of the stone corner column that is existing. Mr. Williams stated they are making improvements to the home that look similar to the original structure, which is not on the National Register for Historic places, but is historic locally. Board of Appeals Minutes -2-September 14, 2005 Mr. Williams questioned staff regarding handrail heights for stairs, whether they need to be 36” or 30” tall. Mr. Dannhoff stated handrails need to be 30” to 38” above the nose of the stair-treads. Mr. Williams also stated they will be replacing the concrete steps with wooden steps and will install the handrail 30” high. The height of the railing on the stairs will be 30” and the code states 36” minimum height for the guardrails and they are asking it be permitted to 30” which is an increase of 8” over the former guardrails. David Bedore, 1125 Evans St. Oshkosh, WI, Representing Owner, asked staff if the porch was screened, would that change the code and where could they put it. Mr. Dannhoff stated yes it does change the code and at the present time there is not a requirement that the screen or windows have to meet any type of loading requirement. With screening it you would end up with a door and you would have to have a landing at the door. Ms. Hentz asked staff if the proposed site was screened in on each side, would the need for guard rails be an issue today. Mr. Dannhoff stated no, that it would not be an issue. Ms. Hentz then asked the petitioner if they are willing to screen in both sides. Mr. Bedore stated yes. Mr. Lang stated there is a lot of mixed ideas on what is going to take place with the porch. He also questioned if this is going to be tabled. Ms. Hentz stated no, if they were going to screen the porch, they would not need to be in front of the board. Ms. Hentz asked if the owner has been ordered to replace the guardrails. Mr. Dannhoff stated the owner is not under an order to replace them, they just wanted to remodel the porch. Ms. Hentz stated the City of Oshkosh and other municipalities adopt the historic building standard and would allow something like this if it were a historic building. What she is concerned about is the issue of safety, what difference does it make if it’s historic or not. Mr. Dannhoff replied, nationally communities grant some leniency with historic buildings in order to maintain integrity with the historic nature of the structure. Motion by Mr. Lang for approval to the City’s Building Code to allow the replacement of front porch guardrails to match the height of the former guardrails. Seconded by Mr. Cornell. Motion denied 0-4. II. 2526 FOND du LAC ROAD Roger Karlin, applicant, Karlin Trust, owner, request a variance to construct a 240 square foot detached garage 42 feet from the front property line within the front yard area of the parcel whereas Section 30-17 (R-1 Single Family Residence District) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires detached garages to be located in either the side or rear yard of the lot. Mr. Buck introduced the item and passed around photos of the site. He explained other owners in the area have detached garage and the applicant’s detached garage would meet the required setbacks of a principal building. Ingress and egress from a private roadway that leads to Fond du Lac Road, the homes in the the area were built fronting the lake rather than the private roadway or Fond du Lac Road. Board of Appeals Minutes -3-September 14, 2005 Roger Karlin, 2526 Fond du Lac Road, Owner and petitioner, stated the property is unique, the City of Oshkosh states a front yard is considered as the yard that fronts the public street, there is no public street. Mr. Lang asked what is the current size of the garage. Mr. Karlin stated the current garage size is 22’x26’ and the new garage is going to be 12’x20’. Mr. Lang then asked staff in zoning if there is a limitation of how many square feet you can get in a garage. Mr. Buck stated that is correct, a maximum in any single family lot of 1200 sq. feet of garage and the combination of the two are within limits. Mr. Penney stated it is truly a unique property, the building has to go where it is proposed and he talked to the neighbors and they do not have a problem with the garage. Motion by Mr. Lang for approval with the of the variance to construct a 240 square foot detached garage 42 feet from the front property line within the front yard area with the following condition; 1. The garage be buffered on the west and north sides by a minimum 10’ wide landscaped area. Plant material in that area shall have the distinct purpose of screening the bulk of the structure from neighboring landowners. Landscape plan subject to final approval by the Department of Community Development. Seconded by Mr. Penney. Motion carried 4-0. Finding of Facts: Mr. Lang stated the property adjacent to have a similar plot, with the garages being placed in what is called the front yard therefore this would not diminish the value of the neighborhood since there are several placed there already. Ms. Hentz state there is a uniqueness to the property, no adverse impact on neighboring properties and would negatively impact this property and possibly others as well. DISCUSSION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS PROCEDURES New State Law, AB 24, known as Act 34 Mr. Buck introduced the item and went over the amendments, additions and deletions of the state code. Ms. Hentz requested a new BOA policy packet, with with changes be prepared. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 4:27 pm Cornell/Lang. Unanimous. Respectfully Submitted, David Buck Associate Planner DB/pal