HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES APRIL 9, 2003 PRESENT: Carl Ameringer, Thomas Feavel, Cheryl Hentz, Joel Kluessendorf, Edward Wilusz EXCUSED: Don Krueger, John Schorse STAFF: Matt Tucker, Associate
Planner; Mary Lou Degner, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairperson Hentz. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of March 26, 2003
were approved as mailed. (Ameringer /Feavel) Unanimous. I: 1449 KNAPP STREET Valerie Zapolsky, applicant and owner, is requesting a variance 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 must be accompanied by supporting data. Allyn Dannhoff, Director of Inspection Services for the City of Oshkosh, introduced the item. He explained
that there are two variance requests, the first request to allow for the creation of living space within an existing unfinished attic area where the second exit will not be provided,
and the second request to allow for the creation of living space within an existing unfinished attic area where the existing stairway is 32” wide. Mr. Ameringer noted that the staff
report is set up with a number of questions to be addressed, which are different from the usual questions in regard to granting a variance. He questioned what kind of analysis would
be appropriate. Mr. Dannhoff replied that building codes are primarily geared toward life safety issues and those standards are based on what is the minimum accepted criteria. He said
that in this case, when the applicant is requesting a variance to not provide the code required second exit, it is the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed
situation would provide a similar level of safety as if the two exits were provided. Mr. Dannhoff explained that in summation, if the variance requests were approved, the Board should
provide information as to why they believe the proposal would be as safe as the code requirement. There was discussion on whether the two variance requests would be considered separately
or as one since they are related to each other and the conditions for the second variance request are inclusive in the conditions for the first variance request. It was concluded that
the requests could be considered as one variance. Vice Chairperson Hentz asked what would prevent the present owners or future owners from using the attic area for sleeping purposes
or for the creation of bedrooms. She also questioned if in the event of power loss if the battery back up to the interconnected, hardwired smoke detection system would still be operable,
and further questioned if the condition for a phone on the third floor should be specific in terms of a land line telephone versus a cordless or cell phone.
Board of Appeals Minutes -2 -April 9, 2003 Mr. Dannhoff explained that permits are issued every day for the creation of basement recreation rooms noting it is simply an honesty issue
and that he had no concerns in this particular case. Mr. Dannhoff added that in regard to future sale of the house, real estate law dictates that the present owner must disclose to the
realtor or interested buyers the conditions of use for the property. Mr. Dannhoff replied that the smoke detection system was designed to operate if there was loss of power. He said
he would suggest a permanently affixed land line phone as a condition of permit approval. There was discussion noting that there is a small rec room in the basement and space available
in an enclosed porch. Ms. Zapolsky stated that the basement space is divided into small rooms with load bearing brick walls, which are not removable, and that the porch is very narrow
and unheated, whereas the attic space is open with heating, and air conditioning available. She said she was not amiable to the condition stating the need for installation of a code
compliant ladder. Ms. Zapolsky stated her alternative to the ladder is the availability of egress out the tower window, down one story to the porch roof, and then a one story jump onto
the lawn. She noted that the house is on the National Register of Historic Places and the placement of the recommended ladder would be inappropriate in the area of the main staircase
and the other suggested location would result in the loss of closet space. Ms. Zapolsky said it is her understanding that if a room does not have a closet it can not be classified as
a bedroom and the house is currently listed as a 5 bedroom home. She added that the existing staircase to the attic is a finished 32” staircase that is safe and easily accessible. Ms.
Zapolsky said she was agreeable to all the other conditions recommended by staff. Mr. Dannhoff explained that the use of egress windows is not allowed for third floor levels because
this does not provide for safe exiting. He noted that the state has approved variances when an approved sprinkler system is installed for the entire building, however he noted that this
was not a reasonable alternative in this case. It was noted that it was the opinion of the Oshkosh Fire Department that an interconnected smoke detection system should be provided if
the second exit could not be provided. There was discussion on the amount of clearance necessary for rescue personnel to access windows. The Board stated their concerns in the event
of emergency situations and safety issues. There was further discussion on possible locations for the recommended ladder, the reasons for the stair enclosure at the top of the stairs,
and the possibility of using a drop down portable ladder or an exterior ladder. The Board suggested that the item be layed over to the next meeting to give the applicant an opportunity
to consider available options. Motion by Feavel to lay the item over to the next meeting. Seconded by Hentz. Motion approved 5-0. Unanimous. Ms. Zapolsky said she would not be available
for the meeting of April 23, 2003 and asked to postpone the lay over to the meeting of May 14, 2003. The request was approved. II: 702 WASHINGTON AVENUE & 408 BOYD STREET Linda L. Dio
Guardi, applicant and owner, is requesting a variance to allow for a substandard lot that will have 76’4” of lot depth and 2,976+ sq. ft. of lot area, and for a detached garage with
a 0’ rear yard setback, whereas Section 30-19(B)(1)(a) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires residential lots to have a minimum of 100’ of lot depth and 7,200 sq. ft. of lot
area and Section 30-19(B)(4)(d)(iii) requires detached garages provide a 2.5’ rear yard setback.
Board of Appeals Minutes -3 -April 9, 2003 Matt Tucker introduced the item and presented pictures. Linda Dio Guardi, 408 Boyd Street, said she presently owns both properties and the
people who have the contract for the property at 702 Washington Street are aware of the proposal. She said she has lived in both houses and, in her opinion, the request for the extra
space from the property at 702 Washington Avenue to the property at 408 Boyd Street would not have a negative impact on either property. Mr. Ameringer asked the applicant if she was
comfortable with the compromise proposed by staff. Ms. Dio Guardi said she was agreeable to the compromise. Motion by Kluessendorf to approve a variance to transfer the north 6’2” of
the property at 702 Washington Avenue to 408 Boyd Street. Seconded by Feavel. Motion approved 5-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded that it was an unusual and unique
situation, the hardship was not self-created, and it was a good compromise for both properties with allowance for the 2.5’ required setback for the garage at 702 Washington Avenue. III:
3084 LAKE REST LANE B. Mike Sammons, applicant and owner, is requesting a variance to construct an addition to a dwelling located within the 100 year flood plain that does not meet the
standards for development in flood fringe areas requiring a 15 foot fill radius, whereas Section 30-56(C)(1)(a)(1) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires residential structures
to have a fill radius of 15 feet extending around the structure with an elevation of (1) foot or more above the regional flood elevation. Matt Tucker introduced the item. Mike Sammons,
1845 Walnut Street, said that he presently has a problem with the boiler, which is located in a closet. He stated that the boiler is no longer manufactured and it constantly trips off
the carbon monoxide alarms. He said he hopes to retire at the property and an addition would allow the space for a mechanical room. Motion by Ameringer to approve a variance request
to construct an addition addition to a dwelling located within the 100 year flood plain that does meet the standards for development in flood fringe areas requiring a 15 foot fill radius,
with the following condition: 1) The floodplain fill radius be provided around the addition at a maximum distance, not to exceed 15’, and where the fill radius is sloped down to match
the existing grade, a 1:3 pitch shall be utilized. Seconded by Hentz. Motion approved 5-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded that the property is unique in the fact that
the floodplain affects the entire lot, the hardship was not self-created, it is the least possible alternative to provide a floodplain fill radius for the addition, and there would be
no adverse impact on neighboring properties.
Board of Appeals Minutes -3 -April 9, 2003 OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Kluessendorf questioned Item I, 1449 Knapp Street, which is zoned R-1. He said he could vision a beautiful building such
as this to be a bed and breakfast in the future and questioned what zoning would be required. Mr. Tucker stated a bed and breakfast requires a minimum of R-5, Multiple Dwelling District.
Mr. Kluessendorf asked if variances were granted whether they would still apply if the property was rezoned. He stated a concern of having additional people in the structure, with more
chance of use for the attic area. Mr. Tucker responded that this would relate to a conversion of the property with a permit review process for different use, and noted that a previous
variance approval would not permit the conversion of the property to a different use. The facts heard during the variance hearing, in this case a single family dwelling with the proposed
use of the area as a play room, would permit this space to be converted to playroom space. Mr. Feavel questioned how the order for the items on the agenda were established. Mr. Tucker
responded that it is generally arranged in the order of application, except when there is a building code variance because it requires additional staff. There being no further business,
the meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Matt Tucker Associate Planner MT/mld