Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MAY 22, 2002 PRESENT: Carl Ameringer, Fred Dahl, Cheryl Hentz, Don Krueger, John Schorse EXCUSED: Joel Kluessendorf, Edward Wilusz STAFF: Matt Tucker, Associate Planner; Mary Lou Degner, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Chairman Krueger. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of May 8, 2002 were approved as mailed. (Hentz/Ameringer) Unanimous. TH I: 637 W. 6 AVENUE Daniel Schmidt, 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 Ordinances, 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. Allyn Dannhoff, Chief Building Inspector, introduced the item. He said the owner of the property applied for a permit to install a bathroom on the second floor and through the review process it was determined there was not the compliant headroom required for the proposed bathroom nor for the entire second floor. Mr. Dannhoff said it should be noted that by adding a second floor bathroom there would be no increase in the habitable areas on that floor level and they already have a code compliant bathroom elsewhere in the home. He added it is not an issue of adding a substandard facility as their only facility. Mr. Dannhoff explained that the City adopts the State of Wisconsin Building Code for a requirement of 7’ ceiling height to existing structures, but since this is a pre-existing structure the City has the authority to grant variances in this situation. Mr. Ameringer noted that in past similar cases there have been other criterions such as the requirement for smoke detectors. He asked if there were any safety concerns or issues. Mr. Dannhoff said the reason that condition was not imposed on this variance request was because the amount of habitable space is not being increased, the proposed bathroom will be installed in an existing closet. Ms. Hentz noted that smoke detectors are required per State law. Discussion continued on the types of smoke detectors, battery versus interconnected. Chairman Krueger asked if the property was zoned R-2, and inquired if the property could be used as a duplex. Mr. Tucker responded the property is R-2, but could not be classified as a duplex, without proper variances, because the lot is not code compliant in terms of depth or lot area. Mr. Dannhoff said another area of concern could be if the property was used as a single- family rental, due to the second floor ceiling height being less than 7’. Motion by Hentz for approval of the building code for creation of a bathroom within an existing second floor closet space that upon completion will have a finished ceiling height of 6’ 9 1/2”. Seconded by Schorse. Motion approved 5-0. Finding of the fact: It was concluded there does not appear to be any safety concerns due to the fact that it is not creating additional habitable space and smoke detectors are required by State Law. II: 3071 SHADOW LANE Fred Baker, applicant and owner, requests a variance to construct a garage in the front yard area with a 15’ front yard setback to Shadow Lane and a 3’ setback to Harbor Way Road, whereas Section 30-17(B)(40 of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires garages be located in the side or rear yard. Matt Tucker introduced the item and circulated photos. He explained the City is currently reviewing the ordinance to possibly modify it, which would permit this type of structure in the front yard area because of the lake frontage on the property. He added that Shadow Lane does not continue to the north because of a 4’ high chain link fence that prevents traffic flow to Harbor Bay Road. He noted the property was annexed into the City with this pre-existing condition and there are presently no plans to extend the road. Fred Baker, 3071 Shadow Lane, said he had nothing to add to Mr. Tucker’s introduction. Motion by Ameringer for approval of the variance to construct a garage in the front yard area with a 15’ front yard setback to Shadow Lane and a 3’ setback to Harbor Bay Road. Seconded by Hentz. Motion approved 5-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded it would be an aesthetic improvement to the unique property, there would be no adverse impact on surrounding neighbors, and it would be consistent with other garages in the area. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:41 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Matt Tucker Associate Planner MT/mld