Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 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 of the 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, 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. 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 of Inspection 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. 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 21.04(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 had overlooked noting approval for both variances as he meant his recommendation to read “this office recommends approval of variance requests # 1 and # 2 with the condition 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 of the 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. The 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 of the 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 of tenants 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 units with 4 bedrooms each with 7 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 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. 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 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 Council or 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