Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesBoard of Appeals Minutes 1 December 10, 2014 BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES December 10, 2014 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Tom Willadsen, Reginald Parson, Kathryn Larson, Robert Krasniewski EXCUSED: Dennis Penney STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator; Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary Chairperson Cornell called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of November 12, 2014 were approved as presented. (Carpenter/Krasniewski) ITEM I: 736 E. MELVIN AVENUE Description Code Reference Minimum Proposed Front Yard Setback 30-17(B)(3)(c) 25’ 13’ Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site and stated that this request was reviewed at the November 12th meeting of the Board and was continued until the December meeting with the request that the petitioner provide a more detailed site plan with interior and exterior dimensions to determine the viability of alternatives. The petitioner has provided this information in addition to interior and exterior photos that illustrate the existing conditions more completely. He stated that the property is zoned R-1 Single Family Residence District and is used for adult family home purposes. The principal structure is a single story ranch-style home and the general area is comprised of low-density residential uses. The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a permanent wheelchair ramp on the south side of the home in the front yard setback which would be a second wheelchair access for the facility. The need for the second ramp is tied to state regulations and licensing requirements and is creating a degree of hardship for the petitioner. The first exit ramp is placed by-right near the northeast corner of the structure however the second ramp does not have any by-right alternative location based on the existing development on the parcel. The proposed location in the front yard appears to be the most practical for implementation and is located near the home’s driveway for efficient drop-off/pick-up for residents and Inspection Services has reviewed the site plan and confirmed the design is the least intrusive for setback requirements. Staff recommends approval of the variance as requested. James Marvin, 1414 Lake Breeze Road, stated that he provided the additional site plan with the dimensions of the rooms and garage that the Board had requested at the last meeting. He stated that the Board had proposed the possibility of removing the window well by the front entrance where the ramp was originally requested to be located to enable them to move the ramp closer to the house. They researched this possibility and found that this could be done however they would need to remove the windows in the basement at this location, repair the foundation and elevate the grade. Moving the ramp up tight to the house would result in not being able to access the window well but it could be done if this would be necessary to receive approval of the variance. He discussed the suggestion that the ramp could be located off of the breezeway either from the front or rear entrance and stated that it would only work if it was done at the rear entrance. He displayed a conceptual site plan with the ramp coming through the interior of the breezeway to the door and additional ramping to exit the door using the original footprint of the breezeway before the interior remodeling was Board of Appeals Minutes 2 December 10, 2014 completed. Locating it from the front exit of the breezeway would still require a variance and placing the ramp going through the garage would not work as it cannot be extending through an overhead door. The rear exit door going through the garage would require the door to be raised or moved and would have to use area along the garage as the ramp would have to be constructed in an “L” shape with three landing spots but it would be possible to have the ramp going to the rear door. This configuration would require the ramp to extend along the back and west of the garage which would require fitting a sidewalk on the west side of the garage and he had additional concerns about the four foot wide sidewalk that would be required as well as railings along the sidewalk due to the grading and questioned if they would need a variance for the railings and sidewalk. He stated that this was not a preferable option as it was leaving two rear entrances and not the shortest distance from the home to the driveway area for transporting residents to and from the living quarters. He also discussed the laundry room doorway to the covered porch which was suggested as another alternative at the last meeting. He stated that the door can be widened to 36” and the overhang on the patio would need to be raised or removed to install the ramp at this location. He stated that this option was also not preferable as it would still be two rear exits. It was also suggested that a window be removed on the east side of the house and install a door at that location which would be feasible but would result in two ramps being located on one side of the house exiting to the same point. This location would also be farther from the exit to the garage and the front location proposed was still the preferable placement as it was the shortest distance from the home to the driveway which makes a difference in inclement weather. The front entrance was to be the primary entrance to the residence. Mr. Parson referred to the photo of the window well on page 1 and questioned if this would cause harm or be a safety issue if the ramp was placed there. Mr. Marvin responded that the windows would still be accessible from a maintenance standpoint and it would cause no issues with the ramp as it would have railings installed. He did note that there are a limited number of windows in the basement and the removal of these two windows would further limit the ventilation for this area of the home. Ms. Larson questioned if there would be an issue with installing railings on the west side. Mr. Muehrer responded that it would still require a variance for either the sidewalk or railings placement as it would still be located in the rear yard setback area. Mr. Marvin commented that it appeared that the driveway was extended to the west at some point in the past. Mr. Muehrer indicated that the home is nonconforming on that side now and this would extend the nonconformity. Mr. Carpenter commented that exits for emergency purposes would be more advantageous if located in two different areas. Mr. Marvin responded that two separate exit points were more preferable however there were issues with the interior layout. He further explained the state’s requirements for handicapped ramps and discussed the step involved when going from the house to the breezeway area. Mr. Krasniewski commented on the state building code requirements and that it would be really close to meeting these requirements with exits on the front and rear facades of the home. He voiced his concerns with residents getting out of the house in case of an emergency situation and questioned if they would be able to meet the two minute requirement with the ramps in these locations. Board of Appeals Minutes 3 December 10, 2014 Mr. Marvin commented that he was not sure about the ability to meet that requirement. Mr. Krasniewski stated that it seems that it would be very difficult to accomplish the exiting within two minutes from the location of the bedrooms to the ramped exits at the proposed locations. Mr. Marvin responded that Clarity Care has staff there to assist residents with exiting the home and they would not be doing it on their own. He further discussed the ramp at the breezeway location and how it would require three landings and multiple lengths as well as railings on the inside. These railings would cut off access to the front door which may cause issues with the Fire Department and they cannot place a gate in there as it would be considered a restraint. Mr. Krasniewski commented that a railing would also be considered a restraint. Mr. Willadsen questioned how many residents were planned to live at this facility. Mr. Marvin responded that they were planning on four residents at this facility. Mr. Willadsen then questioned how many would be wheelchair bound. Mr. Marvin replied that there would be one resident for sure and possibly two. Mr. Parson inquired if this issue had been discussed with the Fire Department. Mr. Marvin responded that he has had some discussions with Brian Bending of the Oshkosh Fire Department and he is very familiar with their business however he has not discussed this particular issue with him and he may have concerns regarding blocking and railings in the breezeway. Ms. Larson read a statement she composed regarding her concerns with this proposed ramp on the home and the aesthetics and felt it would be difficult for her to support this variance request. She discussed the business proposition of the home’s purchase for this use and that they should have discussed these issues with an architect prior to making changes to the interior of the home and the need for two ramps. She felt that their decisions regarding this matter were disturbing and disrespectful to the neighborhood. Mr. Willadsen stated that he lives in this neighborhood and he does not have any issues with the aesthetics of the handicapped ramp as wheelchair bound individuals require accessibility and he had no problem with it. Mr. Marvin indicated that the necessary alterations could be made to place the ramp within the breezeway. Mr. Krasniewski commented that when the petitioner altered the home from a three-bedroom structure to a four-bedroom, they created their own hardship. Mr. Carpenter added that the Board has to abide by the state laws when considering granting a variance and hardship can be considered but not when it is self created. He further commented that the aesthetics do not bother him but the safety issues are also a big concern and that there are other alternatives. He reiterated that the hardship appeared to be self-created. Mr. Krasniewski commented that any issues with granting the variance cannot be related to the use of the residence as a group home as this is an allowable use in this zoning district. Board of Appeals Minutes 4 December 10, 2014 Mr. Parson questioned if there were alternative ways to construct the ramp other than running it off the front of the home. Mr. Marvin replied affirmatively and stated that although they extended the hallway to add the additional bedroom, the ramp could be located through the breezeway with some alterations however this was not preferable as it made the distance from the home to the garage longer. Mr. Krasniewski commented that the hallway extends by the breezeway but there was some issue regarding the step there going into the breezeway. Mr. Marvin responded affirmatively. Ms. Larson inquired if the pavement could be brought up outside to eliminate the step. Mr. Marvin again responded affirmatively. Ms. Larson questioned if they could eliminate the step by the breezeway door near the driveway, if they could use the ramp by the breezeway. Mr. Marvin explained the state requirements regarding the ramp’s construction and that the ramp would still require railings and they would have to change the grading on the outside of the home to make this scenario feasible. Dan Gabert, 940 Bowen Street, stated that he was speaking on behalf of his neighborhood and had objections to the aesthetics of having a handicapped ramp in front of the house particularly since there were other alternatives for placement of it. He also commented about the project starting prior to the variance being granted and that they did not object to one handicapped ramp but did not want to see two placed at this home. Mr. Krasniewski questioned what work had been started prior to the variance hearing. Mr. Gabert claimed that concrete work had been completed for the approach and platform. Mr. Muehrer replied that he checked on Mr. Gabert’s complaint after the November meeting and did not see any completed work at that time related to the variance request. Mr. Marvin stated that some concrete sidewalk was installed in front of the house which would be utilized as a sidewalk to the driveway if the ramp is not approved for this location and that the work was done in conjunction with the concrete work that was completed for the approved ramp that was being installed. This was done due to weather constraints. Mr. Krasniewski referred to the pictures in the board packet and questioned if the concrete work was done after the photos had been taken. Mr. Gabert responded that the concrete installed runs parallel to the building and was not there before. Mr. Krasniewski noted there was concrete shown on the photos provided by the petitioner in front of the home and questioned if a permit was obtained or required. Board of Appeals Minutes 5 December 10, 2014 Mr. Muehrer indicated that the concrete sidewalk installed was no different than any service walk and did not require a building permit. If it becomes part of the access ramp, that would trigger the requirement for a building permit. Mr. Parson inquired if any of the alternative locations for placement of the handicapped ramp were acceptable to Mr. Gabert. Mr. Gabert responded that he felt it would be feasible to come out of the back of the residence and along the side with the ramp and wanted a voice in where it is placed. Mr. Willadsen stated that Mr. Gabert had indicated that he was speaking on behalf of a number of the neighbors and requested specifics regarding names and addresses of who he is representing. Mr. Gabert replied that a Charles that lives behind the subject site and the party that lives at 1000 Bowen Street and others. He reiterated that other options should be considered. Kristine Mosley, 119 N. 4th Street, Winneconne, stated that she was speaking on behalf of her aunt who lives in the group home and voiced her concerns with making residents in wheelchairs use a back entrance. She stated that all the residents should be fully integrated and her aunt should feel like this is her home and should not be put in a different category than the other residents due to her physical condition. She further stated that she understood that the ramp would be required to meet code standards but she felt that it could be placed in the front of the home with appropriate landscaping installed or other features to help screen the ramp from view. Mr. Carpenter inquired if she was concerned with her aunt being located in a back bedroom as in a case of emergency she will have to go into the front of the house to exit the home. Ms. Mosley responded that she was not concerned with that issue as her aunt does not stay in her bedroom as she is a very social person however she did understand the point. She felt that going out the back of the residence and all along the side seems to take longer than going through the front door. She would be the only person at this facility in a wheelchair and other people could use the front door as well. Mr. Carpenter stated that he had concerns with blocking the egress from the facility for this exit as he felt it was a safety issue. Ms. Larson commented that her first choice for location would be off of the breezeway. Sandy Detert, 262 S. Peters Avenue, Fond du Lac, stated that she has worked for Clarity Care for the past 27 years and knows the residents of the home. She is aware of emergency situations that may arise and staff and residents practice fire drills and other emergency training procedures. She explained methods of exiting the residence in emergency situations which could entail taking a wheelchair bound resident down steps if necessary which would not happen under normal circumstances but would be done in emergency situations. She explained that under those circumstances staff would look for the closest door and they practice safest routes of exit. She discussed the acquisition of this property and stated that it may appear that no forethought went into purchasing this site however that is not the case. They looked for an appropriate dwelling for this purpose for the last three years and toured many properties and did not go into any purchase quickly. She further stated that they were not aware that a variance would be necessary for the ramp when they purchased this home but it was ideal in its other features. She commented that the residents are like family and she Board of Appeals Minutes 6 December 10, 2014 discussed the wheelchair bound resident’s situation that had to move out due to the access at their current facility. She stated that the resident is unhappy with her current living arrangements and explained the situation in further detail. She felt that technically there are other options possible for placement of the ramp but the proposed location is the shortest way and is what they are requesting approval for as they make every attempt to provide the most fulfilling life for their residents. Mr. Marvin discussed the requirements for the ramping to meet code requirements for the one already constructed and the one proposed. He discussed the steps from the house to the breezeway and the steps to grade and installing a short ramp which would not meet state code requirements. He further discussed how it may be possible with short ramps which may be helpful in emergency situations. Ms. Larson stated that they could request a variance from the state requirements and one could possibly be obtained for the installation of shorter ramps within the breezeway area. Mr. Willadsen requested to clarify that in addition to the ramp off the front door that they were proposing a third ramp that would not be code compliant. Mr. Marvin responded that he was referring to a short section of ramp that could be used in event of emergency however they would still need two ramped exits that are required for this facility. Mr. Carpenter discussed the 5x5 platform coming out of the front entrance and how much extra you would need to come out of the patio. Mr. Marvin stated that the current step would require 7 ½ feet for the ramping. Mr. Krasniewski questioned if the wall in front of the breezeway was a load bearing wall. Mr. Marvin replied that he was not sure but that it had louvered glass windows going from floor to beam and it may be beamed. Mr. Krasniewski commented that he felt they could find a creative way to use the breezeway for the ramp. Mr. Marvin indicated that they could add a nonconforming ramp to the facility however he was not sure if this would meet the requirements. Ms. Detert added that if they add a nonconforming ramp and no other ramp she was not sure if this would adhere to state requirements and waivers to these requirements were not easy to obtain from the state. Motion by Krasniewski to approve the request for a variance to permit a permanent wheelchair ramp in the minimum front yard setback. Seconded by Willadsen. Ms. Larson stated that she did not like the ramp extending across the front of the house and going out the back and around was not appropriate in this climate. She felt that the facility needed something close to the driveway which would be the best scenario. Mr. Carpenter discussed whether using the area out of the front of the breezeway area would be the best alternative due to its close proximity to the garage. Board of Appeals Minutes 7 December 10, 2014 Mr. Krasniewski felt it would be possible if the front grading could be adjusted. Mr. Carpenter commented that it would solve some of the issues with using the breezeway area. Mr. Willadsen commented that the ramp could come out behind the breezeway wall and exiting to the front of the house. Mr. Krasniewski felt that it would be much safer and more convenient for the residents to place the ramp at this location. Mr. Willadsen commented that the necessity to have two ramps was required for the facility and that it was not easy to find a house like this that would be usable for this type of purpose. Mr. Carpenter discussed the use of landscaping features to help screen the handicapped ramp. Mr. Willadsen discussed the residential facilities needed for this purpose and the difficulty in locating dwellings that would be suited for this type of use. Ms. Larson commented that they need to find better ways to fit into the neighborhood however this dwelling possessed a good layout for a group home residence. All options have not been explored in this situation. Mr. Cornell stated that he felt the Board was micro-managing this situation and that the Board is bound by State statutes and City ordinances and the issue here is not to design the project for the petitioner but to decide whether there should be a variance granted for this ramp. Mr. Krasniewski commented that they are trying to determine if there is a way to construct this ramp without going into the setbacks and Clarity Care has not looked into this sufficiently. Board members continued discussion on the various alternatives for ramp placement and what would be most beneficial and require the least variance necessary. Mr. Carpenter stated that they were trying to look at all possible alternatives. Mr. Cornell commented that Board members are looking at how to design this ramp and that is not the responsibility or function of the Board. Mr. Carpenter discussed the site plan from last month that was deficient and led to the continuance. Mr. Muehrer stated that at this point the Board could choose to table the request for another month and let the petitioner come back with a better alternative or they could take a vote to approve or deny the request as presented. If the Board votes on the variance as presented, the petitioner would be required to pay another fee to come back with a new proposal. Mr. Cornell suggested the Board could motion for a continuance until January. Ms. Larson commented that the Board would want to know about what the state would have to say in regards to this matter. Board of Appeals Minutes 8 December 10, 2014 Mr. Willadsen felt the petitioner should look into the possibility of obtaining a waiver from the state regarding the ramp requirements. Ms. Larson stated that a variance should only be granted when no other alternatives are available. Motion by Willadsen to continue this hearing at the January meeting. Seconded by Carpenter. Mr. Cornell asked if the petitioner understood what the Board wants to see at the continuance hearing. Mr. Marvin stated that he was not sure and asked about moving the front wall by the breezeway to install the ramp at that location. Mr. Krasniewski responded that he should also be looking into getting waivers from the state regarding the ramp and exploring other options. Mr. Marvin stated that he gave other options for its placement. Mr. Willadsen displayed on the site plan how the ramp could possibly be brought through the breezeway area and out to the front of the residence. Mr. Marvin stated that it would not fit into the existing footprint as it needs a 5x5 platform off of each door and each turn and it would not fit there with the ramping to meet state requirements. Mr. Willadsen discussed extending the ramp from the hallway, through the breezeway and exiting in the front of the dwelling next to the driveway. He also reiterated requesting a variance from the state regarding the secondary ramp for this facility. Motion carried 5-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m. (Krasniewski/Larson). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator