Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MARCH 13, 2002 PRESENT: Carl Ameringer, Fred Dahl, Cheryl Hentz, Joel Kluessendorf, John Schorse EXCUSED: Don Krueger STAFF: Matt Tucker, Associate Planner; Mary Lou Degner, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Schorse. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of February 27, 2002 were approved as mailed. (Hentz/Ameringer). Edward Wilusz joined the Board at 3:35 P.M. I: 1930 S. WESTHAVEN DRIVE Steve Dinger, owner, is requesting variances to the City’s Building Code. Per Building Code Section 7-33, persons may file an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals as provided in the City Zoning Ordinance, Section 30-36(B)(2)(a) if an equally good or better form of construction is proposed. All appeals shall be accompanied by supporting data. Matt Tucker introduced the item. Marc Malnory, of 1805 Marquette Ave., Marc’s Remodeling, questioned where the smoke detectors would need to be located. Mr. Tucker explained they would need to be placed per building code requirements, and Mr. Malnory could contact the Building Inspector’s Office for the specific requirements. Mr. Malnory said the ceiling is proposed to be dropped down ½” and the ductwork would be dropped down ¼”. He said he would paint the board around the heat duct a different color, as requested in the Staff Report. Ms. Hentz asked what past procedures have been to ensure that future owners of the property can not turn the area into sleeping quarters. Mr. Tucker suggested that a condition could be added to the building variance request that states the basement area not be used for sleeping purposes or the creation of bedrooms, and this condition be recorded on the title at the Register of Deeds. Discussion continued on the additional condition. Mr. Ameringer noted a point of concern from the Staff Report regarding the contradiction; “as once this area is finished it is likely to be occupied on a more regular basis, and possibly slept in, versus condition #2, “The basement area not be used for sleeping purposes or creation of bedrooms.” Mr. Tucker responded that it is a fact that it becomes an enforcement issue that is relatively impossible to enforce. Mr. Malnory stated the additional living space is intended to be a craft room. Discussion continued on the wording of the item to be recorded on the title of the property. Board of Appeals Minutes - 2 - March 13, 2002 Motion by Hentz for approval of variance request #1 to allow for the creation of living space within an existing basement space that upon completion will have a finished ceiling height of 6 feet 9 3/8 inches with the following conditions: 1)Installation of an interconnected, hardwired smoke detection system with battery back up, with detectors provided in the following locations: a.In the finished basement rooms with detectors provided in each section where the room is divided by a beam that projects more than 4” below the finished ceiling. (NFPA 72 2-2.4.3) In any unfinished section of the basement. (If there are b. separate unfinished rooms, each must be provided with smoke detection.) c.On each floor level above the basement. (A smoke detector is required to be located within 6” of a bedroom.) 2)The basement area not be used for sleeping purposes or creation of bedrooms, and this condition be recorded on the title of the property at the Register of Deeds. Seconded by Ameringer. Motion approved. Unanimous. Motion by Hentz for approval of variance request # 2 to allow for the creation of living space which upon completion will have beams/ductwork projecting greater than 8 inches below a 7 ft. ceiling with the following conditions: 1)Installation of an interconnected, hardwired smoke detection system with battery back up, with detectors provided in the following locations: a.In the finished basement rooms with detectors provided in each section where the room is divided by a beam that projects more than 4” below the finished ceiling. (NFPA 72 2-2.4.3) b.In any unfinished section of the basement. (If there are separate unfinished rooms, each must be provided with smoke detection.) c.On each floor level above the basement. (A smoke detector is required to be located within 6’ of a bedroom.) 2)The basement area not be used for sleeping purposes or creation of bedrooms, and this condition be recorded on the title of the property at the Register of Deeds. 3)Measures must be taken to draw attention to the beams and ductwork to reduce the risk of hitting ones head. Such measures may include painting/covering the sides of the beams/ducts with a color that contrasts with the walls and ceiling. Seconded by Ameringer. Motion approved 5-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded the variances meet the conditions for health, safety and welfare. Board of Appeals Minutes - 3 - March 13, 2002 TH II: 606 W. 9 AVENUE Gary Basler, applicant and owner, is requesting a variance to construct a parking lot with a 5’ side yard setback and a 15’ front yard setback, whereas Section 30-35(B)(1)(c) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 19’3” side yard setback and Section 30- 35(B)(1)(d) requires a 25’ front yard setback. Matt Tucker introduced the item with pictures. Debbie Basler, representing Gary Basler, stated they were agreeable to staff’s thth recommendations. She said the entrances would be off 8 and 9 Avenues and it would allow 2 additional parking spaces. Ms. Hentz voiced a concern about the 5’ side yard setback. Mr. Tucker stated that 24’ of maneuvering aisle space is required by the ordinance. He said the possibility of angle parking was discussed, however the applicant preferred to have access to the parking lot in both directions. He noted the setback could be moved to the west, which would make the side yard setback 8’+. Discussion continued on the screening requirements. TH Alice Krueger, 611 W. 8 Ave., questioned the proposed fencing and how it would affect the current fence on her property. Mr. Tucker explained the proposal is to modify the subject site, which would have the proposed fence along the lot line south of Mrs. Krueger’s fence. Mrs. Krueger voiced a concern on the location of the dumpster enclosure. Discussion continued on the placement of the dumpster location. Ms. Basler submitted a plan of the dumpster site. Mr. Tucker explained the placing of the dumpster enclosure could be problematic but the issue could be resolved between staff and the applicant. Mr. Tucker indicated that the dumpsters have been there for a long time and it would be nice for the adjacent property owners to not have to deal with them, but there presently is not a dumpster enclosure. He noted the applicant is now willing to provide a dumpster enclosure. Mr. Ameringer said he was concerned that Ms. Krueger’s approval was contingent on where the dumpster would be located and he wanted it clear to her that the location of the dumpster has not been decided on. Vice Chairman Schorse noted the dumpster is not part of the variance and it is listed as a condition recommended by staff. Discussion continued on the impact of making a decision on the location for the dumpster during the meeting or having the issue resolved between staff and the applicant. TH David Engebretson, 610 W. 9 Ave., asked for clarification of the side yard setback, the type of proposed fencing, and inquired if the 15’front yard setback would be landscaped to prevent vehicles from driving across his driveway. Vice Chairman Schorse stated the side yard setback would now be 8’ instead of 5’, and the fence would be solid. Mr. Tucker responded there would be grass and landscaping in the 15’ front yard setback. TH Terry Biles, 617 W. 8 Ave., suggested a location for the dumpster area could be with TH the opening facing off 8 Ave. so the garbage trucks could easily access the dumpsters. She also noted a hardship of adjacent property owners having to clean up after the patrons of the applicant’s establishment leave broken bottles, trash, etc. on their properties. Board of Appeals Minutes - 4 - March 13, 2002 Mr. Tucker suggested that the adjacent property owners meet with the owner of the subject site to determine a suitable dumpster enclosure location. Ms. Hentz suggested that staff join them in the determination. Discussion continued on the possibilities. Motion by Hentz for approval of the variance to construct a parking lot with a minimum for 9’ x 18’ parking spots with 24’ of maneuverability side yard setback and a 15’ front yard setback with the following conditions: 1)The property be combined with the commercial property to the east, prior to obtaining a building permit. 2)A landscaping plan be submitted and approved prior to obtaining a building permit, showing fencing, landscaping and green space, along with providing a dumpster enclosure area. 3)The entire parking area be paved per Section 303-36(C)(3)(a). Seconded by Dahl. Motion approved 5-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded it would improve the parking situation, it would have no adverse impact on the neighboring properties, it would be a total overall improvement and the applicant has shown a sincere willingness to work with the neighbors. III: 1690 OHIO STREET Donald J. Kunde, applicant and owner, is requesting a variance to construct a paved parking and storage area in a 0’ rear yard setback, whereas Section 30-25(B)(2)(d) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 25’ rear yard setback. Matt Tucker introduced the item and circulated pictures. Don Kunde, 1690 Ohio St., said he was agreeable to the condition recommended by staff and the reason he did not go ahead with the project when the variance was approved in 1999 was because the contractor put the job off until spring, and then Mr. Kunde discovered a new roof was needed so the roof took priority. Mr. Kluessendorf asked why a closure assessment regarding underground storage tanks was included in the report. Mr. Kunde said he included it with his application to show the property is clear of contamination. Motion by Ameringer for approval of the variance to construct a paved parking and storage area in a 0’ rear yard setback with the following condition: 1)The proposed open storage portion of the new paved area be screened with 6’ tall solid fence. Seconded by Hentz. Motion approved 5-0. Unanimous. Board of Appeals Minutes - 5 - March 13, 2002 Finding of the fact: It was concluded it would clean up the area, it would have no apparent impact on neighboring properties, and the size of the lot makes it difficult to work with. TH IV: 513 W. 9 AVENUE R. J. Albright, applicant for Duo Safety Ladders, owner, is requesting a variance to construct a building with a 15’ front yard setback, whereas Section 30-35(B)(1)(c) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 25’ front yard setback. Matt Tucker introduced the item with pictures. Gregory Lurvey, General Manager of Duo Safety Ladders, stated they deal in the fire service industry and they have customers who pick up their product from them and they sometimes load and unload in the parking lot, so they are planning a drive through building where they can load and unload from inside the building. He added they need the building to accommodate the large extension ladders, which they deal with. Discussion continued on the building to be torn down and the various addresses assigned to Duo Safety Ladders. It was noted the various addresses are due to the regulations of the Fire Department. Steve Schmidt, representative for R. J. Albright, said they were agreeable to the condition recommended. Motion by Hentz for approval of the variance to construct a building with a 15’ front yard setback with the following condition: 1)A landscaping plan be approved by the Department of Community TH Development, for the areas along W. 10 Avenue and the west side of the new building. Seconded by Dahl. Motion approved 5-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded it was the least possible action to remove the hardship, it removes an existing structure, which is not very attractive, it creates an additional setback of 5’, and it has no adverse impact on neighboring properties. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Matt Tucker Associate Planner MT/mld