Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OCTOBER 8, 2003 PRESENT: Thomas Feavel, Cheryl Hentz, Larry Lang, John Schorse, EXCUSED: Ron Montgomery, Ed Wilusz STAFF: Matt Tucker, Associate Planner; Allyn Dannhoff, Director of Inspection Services; Mary Lou Degner, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Chairman Schorse. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. Mr. Feavel explained the reason for his nay vote on the second motion for Item II, 1312 Algoma Boulevard, was because the motion was for the garage to be 1200 square feet in area and he would have supported an area of 1216 square feet. The minutes of September 24, 2003 were approved as mailed. (Hentz /Lang) Unanimous. I: 1680-1698 S. KOELLER STREET Marlin Koeller LLC, applicant and owner, is requesting a variance to allow for a commercial structure to have rooftop mechanical equipment that is visible from adjacent streets, whereas Section 30-35(I)(5) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be fully fully screened from view of any street. Matt Tucker introduced the item and circulated photos. He explained that the original building elevations did not depict the rooftop mechanical equipment and an occupancy permit was issued for the building. He further explained that the rooftop was not inspected for zoning compliance and the permit was issued without providing the required screening. Mr. Tucker noted he had contacted the companies that provided bids to install screening, to see specifically what they were proposing. He explained that R. J. Kampo provided a bid for a “spinnaker screen”, and Crafts Inc. provided a bid for screening similar to the Aurora Hospital (Proposed bids included as part of the applicants’ submittal, on file in the Department of Community Development). Mr. Tucker commented on another property, which was recently built in the City that has much larger units than the subject property for which screening was provided at a cost of $6,000.00. Andrea Gauger, 2350 East Mason Street, Green Bay, Wisconsin, introduced herself as the property manager of the subject property. She said the building was built in 1998 and the City is now requesting that the units be screened. She explained that it would be a financial hardship because it would now cost over $30,000.00 to comply with the ordinance. Ms. Gauger said if they had been aware of the ordinance at the time of construction it would have cost about $7,500.00, according to their general contractor, Innovative Construction Solutions, Inc. She noted that there are several commercial buildings in the area that were built before 1996 that also do not have their units screened. Ms. Gauger said they would like to be able to paint the rooftop units to make the units more aesthetically pleasing. She said, in her opinion, there is no difference between observing square rooftop units or square fenced boxes on the roof. Board of Appeals Minutes -2 -October 8, 2003 Ms. Hentz questioned why the mechanical equipment was not depicted in the original drawings. She also asked if there was a reason why Innovative Construction Solutions did not submit a bid for the work if it was to be built today, and questioned if the applicant had any quotes for painting the units. Ms. Gauger said she did not have an answer as to why the units were not shown on the original drawings and noted that she was not with the company at that time. She explained that since she already had bids from R. J. Kampo Plumbing & Heating, Inc., and Crafts Inc., she used Innovative only as a reference as to what the cost would have been at the time of construction (1998–1999). Ms. Gauger said she did not obtain quotes for painting, but would estimate the costs to be a couple thousand dollars. Mr. Feavel stated that it appears that staff has done more research than the applicant in regard to alternatives and proposals. There was discussion on the research staff had completed. Ms. Gauger commented that she had contacted five HVAC contractors and only Kampo would supply a bid, she added that Crafts was the only roofing company that would give her a bid. She stated that both companies that supplied bids had visited the site to make on-site inspections. Mr. Tucker explained that the photos of buildings that were submitted by the applicant were constructed before 1996, before the City amended the Zoning Ordinance to require rooftop mechanical equipment to be screened from view from the public street or residential zoning district. There was discussion in regard to mechanical use change versus a change in use for occupying a building, building additions, and the status of legal nonconforming screening. Ms. Hentz asked for an explanation of the process for issuing an occupancy permit and she questioned why the rooftop mechanical equipment was missed on the subject property. Allyn Dannhoff, Director of Inspection Services for the City of Oshkosh, explained that an occupancy permit is the final stage. He said it is an on-site review for compliance of the plans that were submitted. Mr. Dannhoff said that he had made the final inspection at the subject property and he was unaware at the time that there was an ordinance violation. He noted that the submitted plans did not depict the rooftop mechanical equipment. Mr. Lang stated that the line of questioning troubled him. He said he believes that it is the responsibility of the person obtaining the building permit to comply with the ordinances and that it is not staff’s role to be responsible for what the builder is required to do. Ms. Hentz stated that she needed to have all the facts to determine what had happened, and that she believed it was her right to pursue that line of questioning, and that the City still has the responsibility to see that codes are met. Mr. Tucker stated that at the time the subject building was erected the ordinance was fairly new. He noted that there were two staff people involved in the review of this project who are no longer employed with the City of Oshkosh. Mr. Tucker stated that some times, there are circumstances when occupancy permits are issued contingent on conditions being resolved. Mr. Feavel stated that, in his opinion, ignorance of the law is no excuse, and it is the responsibility of the builders to meet requirements of the ordinances. Chairman Schorse questioned if the developers were made aware of the requirements at the time. Board of Appeals Minutes -3 -October 8, 2003 Inspector Dannhoff said he did not have the answer to that question. He said that at the time he was aware of the Highway 41 Corridor standards in regards to the facade of the building. He explained that he was not involved with drafting of the standards so he did not know if the planning personnel, who reviewed the plans at that time, had made any commentary on the subject of the rooftop units. Inspector Dannhoff stated that there is nothing on record about the subject. There was further discussion on the roles of city staff in educating developers about City codes. During board discussion Mr. Feavel said he would not support the variance request and noted that he did not want to set precedence with this issue. Ms. Hentz said she was concerned about the fact that an ordinance that had been in place for two years prior to the subject building being erected was overlooked. She also noted that it is the builder’s responsibility to meet the regulations and added that they did not submit complete drawings at the time of application for the building permit because there was no inclusion of the rooftop mechanical equipment. Ms. Hentz noted that even if the issue had been realized before the occupancy permit was issued, after the initial construction, there still would have been extra expense incurred for the subject property at that time. She said, in her opinion, there was a lack of attentiveness and responsibility on the part of the builder and she would not support the variance request. Ms. Hentz commented that although she realizes that mistakes are made, there have been far too many instances of errors and she implored staff to try to do a better job. Chairman Schorse commented that prior to the development of the subject property there had been a lot of development along Highway 41 where the rooftop units are exposed. He said, in his opinion, this would not be setting precedence because there are older and newer buildings in the area and he would support the variance with the condition that the equipment be painted. Mr. Lang disagreed stating that, in his opinion, there is no qualifying hardship and the builder simply did not comply with the rules. Motion by Hentz to approve a variance to allow for a commercial structure to have rooftop mechanical equipment that is visible from adjacent streets. Seconded by Lang. Motion denied 1-3. Aye; Schorse. Nay; Feavel, Hentz, Lang. OTHER BUSINESS There was discussion on the draft copy of the Procedures and Regulations for the City of Oshkosh Board of Appeals. Mr. Tucker said he would prepare another draft of the document and present it to the Board at the meeting of October 22, 2003. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Matt Tucker Associate Planner MT/mld