Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 2001 PRESENT: Fred Dahl, Cheryl Hentz, Randy Husman, Joel Kluessendorf, Don Krueger STAFF: John Bluemke, Principal Planner; Allyn Dannhoff, Director of Inspection Services, Darlene Matulle, Recording Secretary Chairman Krueger called the meeting to order. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of January 24, 2001 were approved as distributed on a 4-0-1 vote. I. 1503 W. Linwood Avenue Christine Braun is requesting (a) a variance from the building code to omit the required landing between the dwelling's front door and the steps leading to the front door; and (b) a variance from the Zoning Ordinance to allow a 6 ft. high wood fence with a 12 ft. front yard setback whereas the Ordinance requires that fences within 15 ft. of the front lot line be less than 4 ft. and less than 50% solid. (A) Variance to Building Code Mr. Dannhoff noted the applicant wants to replace the front steps without a front landing. The City adopts the State Building Code which requires a minimum 3' x 3' landing. The applicant had indicated only rotten wood would be replaced, but all stairs and risers were replaced which would require compliance with the Code. Mr. Dannhoff recommended denial of the request. Mr. Krueger did not recall the Board ever not permitting a landing; usually a larger landing is requested. Mr. Dannhoff stated that a 4' x 6' landing is the most requested size due to safety issues in negotiating the stairs while opening the door. Ms. Christine Braun, 1503 W. Linwood Ave., and her contractor, Dale, appeared before the Board. Dale noted the steps and risers were old and rotten and were replaced for safety reasons. Ms. Braun stated she has never had a problem with the steps from a safety standpoint. She wants to maintain the original aspect of the house, which was built in the 50's. Discussion ensued on several options for installing a landing. Ms. Braun felt any option would diminish the curb appeal. Mr. Husman inquired which way the door opens? Ms. Braun replied the storm door swings out; the inside door swings in. More discussion ensued on the definition of minor repairs and alterations. Ms. Hentz stated she had walked up the stairs and used the door and there was not a safety issue. Board of Appeals Minutes February 14, 2001 Page 2 Mr. Husman felt it is subject to interpretation on the safety issue and repairs. Requiring a landing may deter from the curb appeal. Mr. Krueger noted he had a concern with no landing on a front door due to safety issues. The Board went to lengths to change the regulations to allow wider landings and this would circumvent that prior work. Motion by Husman to approve the request for no front landing. Seconded by Hentz. Motion carried 4-1 (AYE: Dahl, Hentz, Husman, Kluessendorf. NAY: Krueger) Regarding the findings of fact, Mr. Husman felt it is a matter of interpretation as to repair or replacement. To comply with the code would require further encroachment into the front yard and there would be safety issues being too close to the road. (B) Variance to Zoning Ordinance / Fence Ms. Braun stated she was not aware a permit was required to replace and install a fence. This location was chosen due to existing shrubs and bushes, as well as new landscaping that was done when the fence was installed. Mr. Bluemke noted that because the old fence was taken down, the new fence must comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Bluemke inquired if the fence was in 8 ft. sections? Dale replied yes. Ms. Braun stated without the fence she has no privacy. Mr. Bluemke noted the safety issue also needs to be considered. An alternative could be to move one 8 ft. section back to 20 ft. to improve safety. This would still require a variance for a 6 ft. fence in the front yard. Discussion ensued on fences for corner lots versus interior lots and the challenge for owners of corner lots to obtain some type of privacy. Discussion continued on alternatives for keeping the fence, moving the fence back 20 ft., or removing the fence entirely. Mr. Husman felt the distance between the sidewalk and terrace was wide enough to off set a potential safety issue that can occur with a narrower terrace. Motion by Hentz to move approval of the variance as requested. Seconded by Husman. Motion denied 2-3. (AYE: Hentz, Husman. NAY: Dahl, Kluessendorf, Krueger) There being no further business, the meeting adjourned. Respectfully submitted, JOHN C. BLUEMKE, Principal Planner