Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesBoard of Appeals Minutes 1 January 14, 2015 BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES January 14, 2015 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Tom Willadsen, Dennis Penney, Reginald Parson, Kathryn Larson, Robert Krasniewski EXCUSED: none STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator; John Zarate, Chief Building Official; 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 December 10, 2014 were approved as presented. (Larson/Carpenter) 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. This request was again reviewed at the December 10th meeting and again the Board carried a motion to continue the hearing at the January meeting with the request that the petitioner further examine the viability of alternative placement with the City’s Inspection Services Division and contact the State of Wisconsin to gather feedback on the possibility of a variance from the state requirements. The petitioner met with the City’s Chief Building Official John Zarate on site to discuss options who was in attendance to provide his evaluation and the petitioner also provided a copy of the response received from the state regarding a variance to the standard ramp requirements. The petitioner’s variance request was not altered as a result of these actions. 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. John Zarate, Chief Building Official, stated that he met with the owner/petitioner at the site on December 16th to determine if locating the handicapped ramp within the home extending through the breezeway would be possible. He concluded that with the grading, landings and ramp widths necessary, it would not fit in the confines of this area. Board of Appeals Minutes 2 January 14, 2015 Ms. Larson questioned how much of a drop was present going from the house through the breezeway. Mr. Zarate responded that it was 7 ½ inches; however, the sloping run and landings would have to be taken into account when estimating the available space. Ms. Larson discussed the amount of space available to work with and felt that it would possibly fit into this area if utilizing patio doors rather than the standard swinging door. Mr. Zarate responded that the length was not adequate with the level landings necessary at the door and along the ramp length and that the area necessary had to account for both the ramp and the amount of space that the wood to construct it would require. Mr. Krasniewski suggested that the breezeway wall could be removed. Mr. Zarate questioned the possibility of opening up that area as the door would have to be removed which currently leads to the steps. Mr. Parson arrived at 3:34 pm. Mr. Carpenter discussed the fact that the petitioner/owner had renovated a three-bedroom home into a four- bedroom and questioned if the exit would have fit into this area prior to the renovations as this would result in the owner creating this situation. Mr. Zarate responded negatively as previously that area would have been one large room and the ramp would have to start at that location and the floor elevation and bedroom is the same as the rest of the house. Mr. Carpenter voiced his concerns with residents exiting the home in case of fire. Mr. Zarate discussed the use of the structure as a group home which necessitates the presence of both exits being handicapped accessible and the regular building code requirement to have these exits as far away from each other as possible. James Marvin, 1414 Lake Breeze Road, stated that they reviewed the options suggested by the Board for alternative placement of the ramp and although the amount of area lacking sounds small, when factoring in the landings, turns, and closing the last section of door off to 36” encroaching on the landing, and it makes the rest of the section by the railings too narrow. He further stated that he provided the Board with the information requested with the option of going out the front door as well as the response from the State that they would not support a variance from the state requirements in regard to the ramping in this case. Mr. Carpenter commented that it appeared that Mr. Marvin desired to proceed with the original diagram and layout that was originally presented but the Building Inspector is saying that is does not allow the appropriate area of separation between exits. Mr. Cornell questioned if this was planned for when the building permit was obtained and if Clarity Care was aware that two ramps would be necessary for this facility. Mr. Marvin indicated that they were aware of the requirement for two ramps at this facility. The first ramp was constructed and the second was the proposed ramp; however, they were not aware of the setback issues Board of Appeals Minutes 3 January 14, 2015 that would require a variance. He further stated that they were not a construction company but a service agency for persons with disabilities and the Board should understand that this aspect was simply overlooked and not intentional. He requested the Board to make the necessary accommodations to allow the residents to live in this home by granting the requested variance. Ms. Larson inquired if they could make the 20 foot section of ramp look like a porch rather than a ramp to improve the aesthetic appeal and described her concept. Mr. Marvin responded that this would be possible but would require that section of the ramp to be raised and then taken down from that point which would consume more of the front of the house than the proposed layout. Mr. Krasniewski questioned if the recently enacted Design Standards ordinance would apply to this situation. Mr. Muehrer responded negatively. Mr. Krasniewski commented that the proposed ramp would be utilizing wood treated lumber and he wondered if that was allowed with the Design Standard ordinance. Mr. Muehrer indicated that aesthetic requirements were built into the code to address handicapped ramps such as the use of skirting and buffering with landscaping but he would have to verify this with the Director of Planning Services. Ms. Larson questioned if the ramp could be required to have adequate landscaping in place to buffer the visibility of this structure. Mr. Muehrer responded the standard requirements described would apply and that if the Board desired to enhance this feature, it would need to be outlined in a condition of approval referencing this aspect. The same would apply to any concerns about the use of wood treated lumber. Mr. Krasniewski inquired if the exit would not meet code requirements, can the variance still be granted. Mr. Muehrer replied that this would be a building code issue and the Board’s responsibility was to vote on the City ordinance requirements regarding the setback issues only. Ms. Larson questioned if the variance could be approved with the condition that a landscaping plan be approved by the Board at a later date. Mr. Muehrer responded that the condition could be placed on the request with the approval from the Department of Community Development and recommended the use of evergreen type species as it is most beneficial as those species do not shed their foliage during the winter months. Mr. Cornell stated that the landscaping could provide a method to buffer the ramp from street view. Ms. Larson commented that she was considering it unless there were other options available for the placement of the ramp. Mr. Zarate indicated that there were no other alternative placement options that he was aware of that would be less intrusive. Board of Appeals Minutes 4 January 14, 2015 Mr. Marvin commented that he would be happy to landscape in front of the ramp if the Board granted the variance for its placement at the proposed location. Charles Isaacson, 1009 Bowen Street, stated that the site plan sent out with the meeting notices did not clearly depict the porch and door of the structure on the north side and asked for clarification. Mr. Willadsen displayed on another version of the site plan its location. Mr. Isaacson then commented that he was concerned with putting the cart before the horse as the first ramp was completed prior to requesting the variance for the second ramp. Mr. Cornell responded that the first ramp was not relevant with the Board’s decision as this ramp was allowed by right. Mr. Isaacson also commented about concerns relating to the exit and questioned if the porch and door were not a concern because they are not handicapped exits. Mr. Willadsen clarified that the petitioner indicated that staff could get residents out of the other non- handicapped exits in the case of emergency. Dan Gabert, 940 Bowen Street, stated that he did not understand why the breezeway area cannot be used for placement of the ramp as it is located closest to the driveway and felt there must be some way to do it. He stated that it should have entrances at both ends of the structure. Mr. Zarate referenced the site plan drawings and explained the three platforms that would be required in the breezeway and clarified how the ramp would be constructed and why there was not adequate room to do this in this area. Mr. Gabert stated that they should be able to configure it to work in this location. Mr. Zarate further explained area available in the breezeway and the 7 ½ feet of total ramp and the 5x5 landings required and why this would not be able to fit into the location Mr. Gabert was suggesting. Mr. Gabert requested other suggestions for a layout for the ramp other than what was proposed. Mr. Willadsen reiterated that the breezeway area discussed was not large enough to accommodate the ramp requirements. Mr. Carpenter discussed the possibility of removing the windows and moving the breezeway. Mr. Zarate responded that this concept may have design standard code issues with making these types of alterations to the home as the design standards do not allow for the removal of existing windows. Mr. Gabert commented that the ramp could extend into the garage as it would only need to take up one parking space. Mr. Carpenter questioned if the ramp could extend into the garage and lead directly to the vehicle. Board of Appeals Minutes 5 January 14, 2015 Mr. Zarate indicated that this concept was also not possible as removal of the parking space in the garage would be an issue as far as the zoning code requirements as the facility needs to provide off street parking for the employees. Ms. Larson suggested that the existing windows in the breezeway could be removed and re-created to still meet the requirements of the design standards. Mr. Zarate responded that this would not be feasible as it would affect the roof line of the structure. Motion by Penney to approve the request for a variance to permit a permanent wheelchair ramp in the minimum front yard setback. Seconded by Krasniewski. Mr. Penney commented that this request has been discussed for the last three consecutive months with the Board attempting to micro-manage the proposal by trying to design alternatives and although alternatives may be available, the Board’s responsibility is to approve or deny the request only. He felt the Board should vote on the request as presented and if it is denied, it is up to the petitioner to come up with alternative solutions and come back to the Board with a revised request. Mr. Krasniewski stated that we have to have group homes in the city and that the Board was trying too hard to offer alternatives to resolve the situation. He further stated that nothing has changed since the original meeting as far as the request and he felt it was a self-imposed hardship and Clarity Care was aware that two ramps were necessary when the home was purchased. Mr. Carpenter commented that he agreed with Mr. Isaacson and felt that the cart was placed before the horse in this case and that the petitioner came to request the variance too late as this matter should have been researched before purchasing the home and began renovating it. He still had concerns with fire hazards with the layout of the home. Mr. Willadsen stated that the Board is looking at a ramp that will extend 20 feet across the front of the house and that emergency exits would be in different locations in a perfect world; however, he did not find this location for the ramp to be that offensive and he found it supportable. Mr. Parson commented that he agreed with the micro-managing issue and the petitioner should have collaborated with City staff in more detail regarding this matter. However, at this point the Board needs to come to a decision on the matter. Mr. Cornell stated that staff is recommending approval of the variance as requested and has been throughout the process and questioned what the thoughts were behind supporting this recommendation. Mr. Muehrer responded that the proposed location is the least intrusive for the construction of the required ramp. Mr. Cornell questioned if City staff has no problem with the request being approved as presented. Mr. Krasniewski questioned if the variance to the setbacks was the only consideration and not issues relating to the building code requirements. Mr. Muehrer indicated that the setback variance was the only concern of the Board. Board of Appeals Minutes 6 January 14, 2015 Mr. Penney commented about the aesthetics of the situation and that this aspect was a matter of opinion and that the petitioner had the right to use the property for this purpose as it was a legal use regardless if the neighboring property owner does not agree. Mr. Muehrer stated that the ramp location was a traditional location for any home that required a handicapped ramp. Ms. Larson commented that she did not feel that the Board was micro-managing the situation as she felt it was necessary to be sure that all options have been explored before deciding on whether to grant a variance and she would support this request now that all the questions relating to this issue had been addressed. Mr. Carpenter stated that he still was bothered by the fire concerns relating to the location of the bedrooms and getting the residents out of the house in an emergency situation. Mr. Zarate indicated that from a building code standpoint, the layout for the home as proposed would be considered safe. Building code requires the two ramps and two exits as far apart as possible although one is not ramped but it would still be considered safe. Motion carried 4-1. (Ayes-Carpenter/Cornell/Penney/Larson. Nays-Krasniewski.) Finding of facts: Least variance necessary. No harm or danger to public interest. Single family home use would still have ramp in this location. State code requires two ramps. Building Inspector feels it is safe. ITEM II: 527 W. LINCOLN AVENUE 1st Rate Roofing & Siding-applicant, Ralph L. Quinones-owner, requests the following variance to permit fire escapes in the minimum side yard setback: Description Code Reference Minimum Proposed Side yard Setback 30-19 (B)(3)(b) 7’6” 6” Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site and stated that the property is zoned R-2 Two Family Residence District within a Planned Development Overlay and is being used for multi-family purposes. The existing two-story structure features four living units and the general area is characterized by medium density residential uses. The applicant is proposing to replace two fire escapes on the east façade of the structure due to the removal of the previous escapes as their condition was in disrepair. The proposed fire escapes are required for building code as they are second exits for the second-story units. The non-conforming use, parcel dimensions, and setbacks make this situation unique and in addition, the principal structure has a nonconforming side yard setback without any supplemental escape structure. Alternative placement options are non-existent due to the parcel’s substandard lot width, depth and area standards. Practical placement will be maximized in the proposed location and will have the least amount of visual impact on surrounding properties. The variance will not be detrimental to adjacent properties and approval of the variance as requested is recommended. Board of Appeals Minutes 7 January 14, 2015 Daniel Flaherty of 1st Rate Roofing and Siding, 525 Wick Court, Neenah, stated that he was contracted by the property owner to do siding, windows, fire escapes, and doors on the structure and he was proposing to replace the existing jump platforms that serve as the existing fire escapes or second exits with spiral staircases. He was not aware of the setback issues at the time he accepted the contract and the property is very limited as far as setback area. He further stated that the staircases need to be located on the second floor and cannot be constructed out of wood and there was no other location for their placement as they need to be located by the exit doors. He felt the spiral staircase design was the most appealing option for the replacement of the existing fire escapes. Mr. Krasniewski questioned the four-unit rental property in an R-2 zoned district. Mr. Muehrer responded that from his research the property has been a leased multi-family use since its original construction dated back to 1920. He further stated that the area was down-zoned years ago from an R-4 multi- family zoned designation to the existing R-2 Two Family Residence District with a Planned Development Overlay and that the structure possessed a non-conforming use. Mr. Krasniewski discussed the dimensions and setbacks on the site plans and what was referenced in the staff report as there seemed to be some slight discrepancies in the measurements. Mr. Muehrer indicated that the setbacks referenced in the staff report were based on the narrative provided for the project and there may be a transposition on the various plans provided. Mr. Flaherty discussed the measurements he had taken to prepare the site plans and that the measurements were taken from the driveway which may have differed somewhat as the driveway may not have been completely square. Mr. Parson inquired if there were any safety concerns relating to this staircase preventing exiting from the structure such as the presence of power lines in the vicinity. Mr. Flaherty explained that there was a power box located in the northeast corner and discussed the location of this box in relation to the structure and that the staircase will not be any closer to the power box than the bump out of the house. Mr. Krasniewski commented that there was no power lines located in this area. Mr. Carpenter stated that the staircases would be located within 12 inches from the neighboring driveway and questioned if this would be a concern. Mr. Flaherty responded that he focused on this aspect when he contracted to do the work and described the dimensions and elevations of the proposed staircases which should not have a negative impact on the neighboring property’s driveway. Ms. Larson questioned if the jump platforms that existed previously on this structure were still allowed by City code standards. Mr. Zarate replied that those types of fire escapes are not allowed in multi-family or commercial structures such as this one and even though they existed previously, they did not meet current code standards and since they were removed due to their poor condition, they could not be replaced with the same type of fire escape. The proposed staircases possess the same type of encroachment but would be better than the jump platforms that were in place before as far as safety. The staircases could not be relocated to another area on the house as they need to be able to exit the structure from the existing second-story doors and this concept is safer and less intrusive than the jump platforms. Board of Appeals Minutes 8 January 14, 2015 Mr. Penney inquired if there were any objections from the neighboring property owner with the adjacent driveway. Mr. Flaherty indicated that the neighboring property was rental units but there was no mention to him about concerns from the tenants residing in these units. Mr. Muehrer added that he did not have any contact from property owners on the adjacent lots that received a meeting notice regarding this request. Mr. Krasniewski commented that the property owners were all absentee landlords as this area was all rental units. Mr. Parson questioned why the petitioner was proposing spiral staircases for the fire escapes. Mr. Flaherty responded that the property had limited space and a concept using stairs and platforms would take up more area. Mr. Cornell stated that if the existing drop platforms had to be removed while the siding was being installed was there no concern for safety during this time period. Mr. Zarate responded that there were safety concerns during the several months that the platforms were removed and the variance request heard. Mr. Cornell questioned if the platforms should have been addressed when the building permit was issued for the siding. Mr. Flaherty explained that when the building permit was obtained he thought that the jump platforms were included but he was in contact with City staff during the entire process once he discovered that they could not be replaced as they existed without a variance. Safety railings were in place for temporary purposes while the variance process was pursued. Mr. Penney questioned what the time line was for the installation of the staircase fire escapes. Mr. Flaherty responded that if the variance was granted, the staircases would be installed within one month. Motion by Carpenter to approve the request for a variance to permit fire escapes in the minimum side yard setback. Seconded by Penney. Ms. Larson stated that she did not see any issues with the approval of the variance as the fire escapes have to be in place by the second-story exits and the proposal was the least intrusive. Mr. Penney commented that he has seen spiral staircases of this nature on other structures and they are more attractive than the jump platform concept. Mr. Cornell inquired if there is only one railing, if the staircases would be safe. Mr. Flaherty responded affirmatively. Motion carried 5-0. Board of Appeals Minutes 9 January 14, 2015 Finding of facts: Safety issue. Least intrusive remedy. Least variance necessary. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:28 p.m. (Willadsen/Carpenter). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator