Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 2001 PRESENT: Fred Dahl, Cheryl Hentz, Randy Husman, Joel Kluessendorf, Don Krueger STAFF: John Bluemke, Principal Planner; Nicole Krahn, Building Systems Specialist, Inspection Services Division; Darlene Matulle, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Chairman Don Krueger. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of February 14, 2001 were approved as distributed. I. 1942 MONTANA STREET Matt Simonson, applicant, Larry Davis, owner, is requesting variances to the City's Building Code to (a) allow for the creation of living space within an existing basement space which upon completion will have a ceiling height of 6' 5", whereas a minimum 7 ft. ceiling height for at least 50% of the rooms floor area is required, and (b) allow beams/ductwork projecting greater than 8 in. below a 7 ft. ceiling. Mr. Matt Simonson, contractor, indicated from the floor to the beam is approx. 6'10 ½" and the code requires 7'. This doesn't even include drywalling and putting in a drop ceiling. Ms. Krahn noted that Allyn Dannhoff, Director of Inspection Services, has talked to Mr. Simonson about the situation and would recommend approval of the request with the conditions that the entire basement be installed with an interconnected, hardwired smoke detector system with battery backup, as well as all upper floor levels, and that the ceiling height not be reduced any lower than the existing ceiling height except the area under the beam may be reduced as being proposed. Mr. Simonson noted the owner does not have a problem with the smoke detectors, but would not be able to install a drop ceiling with the second condition noted. It would be possible to frame around the ductwork and beam, but it could not be drywalled. Mr. Krueger inquired what the width is of the beam and ductwork? Mr. Simonson replied about 36-38 inches. He reiterated that the owner would like to install a drop ceiling. Discussion ensued on alternatives for the ceiling. Mr. Simonson noted he could probably get away using 3 in. versus 5 in., but not less than that due to mechanicals (i.e. water pipes, electrical, etc.). Mr. Krueger noted that a 7 ft. high basement limits what can be done to finish it off. Bd. of Appeals Minutes - 2 - February 28, 2001 Motion by Hentz to allow for the creation of living space within an existing basement space which upon completion will have a ceiling height of 6' 5" with the following conditions: (a) Installation of an interconnected, hardwired smoke detector system with battery back-up. Detectors to be provided in both portions of the finished basement space (one on each side of the dropped beam) and also installed on each floor level above in locations required by the current code. (b) The ceiling height shall not be reduced any lower than the existing ceiling height except the area under the beam may be reduced as requested. Seconded by Kluessendorf. Motion carried 5-0. Regarding the findings of fact, Mr. Krueger noted the ceiling height is not being changed and the basement can be finished off, but without an enclosed ceiling. The Board has considered safety issues by recommending the installation of hard wired smoke detectors on all floors, including the basement. Motion by Husman to allow beams/ductwork projecting greater than 8 in. below a 7 ft. ceiling with the condition that an interconnected, hardwired smoke detector system with battery back-up be installed on each floor, including the basement areas. Seconded by Hentz. Motion carried 4-1 (AYE: Dahl, Hentz, Husman, Kluessendorf. NAY: Krueger) Regarding the findings of fact, Ms. Hentz noted that safety issues have been considered and will be addressed. II. 2015 DICKINSON AVENUE Jones Sign Company Inc., petitioner, William LeMieux, owner, requests a variance to erect a 30’ high ground sign with a 23’2” front yard setback; whereas Section 30-28(B)(1)(b) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 25’ front yard setback. Mr. William LeMieux, 2015 Dickinson Ave., and Mr. Nick Lison, Jones Sign Company, appeared to answer questions. Mr. Lison stated the objective is to get the sign as close as possible to the access road for visibility. The building is setback 25 ft. from the sidewalk. Mr. Lison distributed a drawing showing the proposed sign and its location next to the building (said drawing not made part of these minutes). Mr. LeMieux stated the sign will be on a 30-40 inch beam/pole and will be as close as possible to the building. Mr. Krueger inquired about the open area on the west side of the building. Mr. LeMieux replied that is where trucks deliver. If placed in this area, the sign might also be above the roof line and building and he was informed by staff that roof signs are not permitted. Mr. Krueger inquired of Mr. LeMieux if he objected to the sign being in front of the windows. Mr. LeMieux replied he did not object. Board of Appeals Minutes -3- February 28, 2001 Motion by Hentz to move approval of the construction of a 30 ft. high ground sign with a 23'2" front yard setback. Seconded by Husman. Motion carried 4-1. (AYE: Dahl, Hentz, Husman, Krueger. NAY: Kluessendorf) Regarding the findings of fact, Mr. Husman stated the hardship would appear to be the placement of the building on the lot. The applicant is requesting the minimum setback needed. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned. Respectfully submitted, JOHN C. BLUEMKE Principal Planner