Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MARCH 28, 2001 PRESENT: Cheryl Hentz, Randy Human, Joel Kluessendorf, John Schorse, and Don Krueger Chairman EXCUSED: Carl Ameringer, and Fred Dahl STAFF: John Bluemke, Principal Planner; Allyn Dannhoff, Director of Inspection Services, and Vickie Rand, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Chairman Don Krueger. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of March 14, 2001 were approved as mailed (Hentz/Kluessendorf). 1: 921 W. 17TH AVENUE This is an appeal of a requirement of the City’s Morals and Conduct Code section 17-20, Protective Enclosures for Private Swimming Pools. Per section 7-33 of the City of Oshkosh Building Code, persons may file an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals as provided in Section 30-6(B)(2)(a) if it can be demonstrated an equally good or better form of construction or repair can be used. While this section is not located within the Building Code, the responsibilities to administer the provisions of this code are placed upon the Inspection Services Division. All appeals shall be accompanied by supporting data. Allyn Dannhoff, Director of Inspection Services, stated the applicant is requesting to use a motorized pool cover for a two-year period until a room is built around the pool. Mr. Dannhoff stated he was satisfied with the performance of the pool cover, however, he didn’t feel it would keep away unauthorized people or children who may come upon the pool by accident when chasing after a toy or a pet, in the case the cover may not be closed because of human error. Mr. Dannhoff noted how a self- closing or self-latching gate takes away the element of human error, therefore, he is recommending for denial of the variance. Discussion followed regarding the height of the fence and the barrier it provides, and the fact that if children are playing and not paying attention to the location of the pool, they will run into a fence before they would a pool in the instance the cover may not be closed. Mr. Dannhoff explained procedures for installing a fence until a room was to be built. Thomas Schoenberger, 921 W. 17th Avenue, introduced his daughter Tammy Ann, stating she is three years old, and is requesting the pool cover instead of the fence because he is concerned for her safety and that of all children. He explained how the cover runs off a key switch to close and lock, vs. a fence that would only provide a barrier. He felt a fence would be fine to prevent neighbors from entering the pool, however he wasn’t convinced it was a safe enough option for his own children, as they would still be able to get to the pool. He showed how items such as a prescription bottle and a car safety seat were only safe under adult supervision. Bd. of Appeals Minutes - 2 - March 28, 2001 Mr. Schoenberger continued with statistics from a 1991 report from the Product Safety Commission regarding the safety of pool covers that stated with over 300,000 safety covers for pools on the market, not one incident of drowning had been reported where the cover met the ASTM safety standards. He also reported on the amount of maintenance and operation costs a pool cover would eliminate. He stated when he was shopping for a pool, safety was a big concern and the use of a cover seemed to suit his needs the best. Mr. Schorse asked Mr. Schoenberger if he would be installing a pool cover regardless if a fence was required. Mr. Schoenberger stated he would be installing a pool cover because of the many advantages it provides. He reiterated that he felt a fence would provide adequate safety precautions for people outside of his family, but didn’t seem safe enough for his family, where a cover would provide safety for everyone. Mr. Dannhoff questioned if the pool cover had an occupancy sensor. Mr. Schoenberger stated he didn’t find any information on a sensor. Mr. Dannhoff also questioned if Mr. Schoenberger had any statistics on how many deaths there have been from pools without covers vs. pools with covers, or how many deaths result from pool drowning each year. Mr. Schoenberger stated the only statistic he could find was from 1991, stating there were 300,000 pool covers on the market and not a single incident of a drowning. Ms. Hentz stated she understood how a pool cover can provide an additional element of safety for one’s family, however, she didn’t feel it was an adequate measure for the neighborhood. Mr. Schorse stated he felt the pool cover provided the best safety feature, however, he stated a fence would provide a barrier for the pool area. He questioned if the extra expense of a fence was justified. Motion by Hentz for approval of an appeal of a requirement of the City’s Morals and Conduct Code Section 17-20, Protective Enclosures for Private Swimming Pools. Seconded by Husman. Motion denied 0-5. ND II: 160 W. 22 AVENUE Frances Weber, applicant and owner, requests a variance to construct a 24’ by 28’ detached garage with a 1’ side yard setback; whereas Section 30-19(B)(4)(b)(v) of the Zoning Ordinance requires a 2.5’ side yard setback. Wayne Gehart, agent for Mrs. Weber and builder, explained the request for the variance and the need for the garage to be 30’ from the back of the house to be able to maneuver into the second stall of the garage and to open up the area where the current garage now exists to benefit the neighbors pool area. Mr. Gehart also pointed out other neighbors in the area who have garages that are only 1’ off of the lot line. Ms. Hentz questioned the location for the new garage, as according to the variance application the new garage would be built in the same location as the existing garage. Mr. Gehart explained the application was incorrect and showed a diagram of the proposed location for the new garage. Chairman Krueger questioned if there was any reason the garage couldn’t be built closer to the back lot line. Mr. Gehart stated he would need to check the distance required from the rear lot line, and he also stated the desire to have the garage closer for convenience. Bd. of Appeals Minutes - 3 - March 28, 2001 Discussion followed regarding the size of the garage and the location of where the garage could be constructed without the need for a variance. Chairman Krueger stated he agreed with the Staff Report by which no hardship was found on which to justify the variance request. Motion by Hentz for approval of a variance to construct a 24’ x 28’ detached garage with a 1’ side yard setback. Seconded by Schorse. Motion denied 3-2. Nays: Kluessendorf, Krueger. III: 663 N. MAIN STREET Beck Signs Inc., applicant for Nate Hennager owner, requests a variance to install a 24 square foot projecting wood sign over the right-of-way; whereas Section 30-37(D)(1)(e) of the Zoning Ordinance requires that wooden signs installed over the right-of-way not exceed 3 square feet. John Beck, Beck Signs, 2269 Allerton Drive, Oshkosh, displayed a sign similar to the one that would be constructed for Mr. Hennager, and explained the construction and the use of redwood, which wouldn’t rot. He stated the owner was doing some remodeling and noted how this sign would be an improvement over the existing sign. He stated he would consider other suggestions the Board may have. Chairman Krueger questioned the size of the new sign. Mr. Beck stated the new sign would be 4’ wide by 6’ high, and noted the current sign is 4’ wide by 7’ high. Mr. Kluessendorf questioned how high the sign would be above the sidewalk. Mr. Beck stated the sign would be 12’ above the sidewalk. Mr. Bluemke stated the Ordinance has requirements that need to be followed regarding sign heights, and also noted the inspection division will take into account the methods used to construct the sign. Mr. Beck also stated this sign could be made to swing freely or be stationary. He stated he has never had any problems with his signs, and can’t afford a lawsuit, as he is liable for up to 2 years after a sign comes down. Motion by Hentz for approval of the variance to install a 24 square foot projecting wood sign over the right-of-way. Seconded by Schorse. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of the Fact: Ms. Hentz stated that she trusted the Planning and Inspection Services Divisions of the Department of Community Development to handle things properly from a safety standpoint. Mr. Kluessendorf stated he also relied on the expertise of the City Staff to handle the safety issues of the sign. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, JOHN C. BLUEMKE Principal Planner JCB/vlr