HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Zoning Appeals (minutes) - 10/08/1997 BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES PAGE 3 OCTOBER 8, 1997
Norbert Bernard, 1249 Spruce Street stated the deck wasn't an obstruction for travel, and would
be an improvement for the neighborhood. He noted that this particular property has had 5
changes to the entryway in the past years, and probably did not meet requirements.
Lois Bernard, 1249 Spruce also spoke in favor of Mr. Delieu's deck. She stated the deck did not
extend the whole length of the house, and would cover up previous deteriorating steps.
Discussion continued as to the option for a deck at another entrance, and whether it would meet
code.
Mr. Roehlig stated that the Board was limited as to decisions they could make of this nature.
Chairman Krueger also noted that as a board they had to look at the hardship demonstrated to
approve such a request. Chairman Krueger stated there were alternatives to putting up the deck
on the front of the house.
Motion by Roehlig for approval of variance for 8' by 12' deck on the front of the
house. Seconded by Schorse. Motion denied 2 -3. (Dahl, Roehlig, Krueger)
Regarding the findings of fact, Chairman Krueger stated no hardship was demonstrated and there
were other alternatives which could be made to meet code requirements.
III: 1286 WHEATFIELD WAY
Michael Rees, owner /applicant requests a variance for a 120 square foot utility structure whereas
Section 30 -17 (B) (4) (e) allows utility storage structures that are 100 square feet.
Michael Rees, 1286 Wheatfield Way stated he had built the house at the address listed four (4)
years ago. At that time he asked his builder if there were any restrictions regarding storage sheds.
His builder said there weren't, and he proceeded to put one up. He recently received a violation
letter that his shed was to big. He said he then talked with Mr. Bluemke and was advised to
downsize the shed or request a variance through the Board of Appeals.
Mr. Rees said the shed would not look good in the neighborhood if he were to downsize it. He
then submitted a list of signatures of acceptance from his neighborhood.
Mr. Dahl asked if the property was within the city limits when it was built. Mr. Rees replied that
it was. Mr. Bluemke stated there may be an alternative by amending the ordinance to allow for
larger storage sheds, as he has become aware of many similar cases. He added the Planning
Department doesn't have a concern with a storage shed of this size, but it does have a concern
with meeting code requirements.
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES PAGE 4 OCTOBER 8, 1997
Mr. Dahl asked if a lay over would be possible. Mr. Rees said that many other neighbors want to
put up storage sheds, and are waiting to see the outcome of his request. Discussion followed
regarding the covenant of the subdivision and the fees involved in a variance request.
Motion by Roehlig to lay over the variance request for a 120 square foot utility shed
for three (3) months pending investigation to amend the ordinance of the size of
storage sheds allowed in this subdivision. Seconded by Dahl. Motion carried 5 -0.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned. (Dahl, Roehlig)
Respectfully submitted,
J C. BLUEMKE
Principle Planner