Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Zoning Appeals (minutes) - 05/06/1987 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES --rij.71 MAY 6, 1987 PRESENT: Anne Hintz, Don Krueger, Kevin McGee, Dave Neu and David Nitkowski STAFF: Chuck Lamine, Principal Planner; Diane Witzke, Recording Secretary Chairperson Kevin McGee called the meeting to order. Roll call was taken and quorum declared present. I. 1940 SIMPSON . Lamine explained the applicant is requesting a variance to construct a front porch with a 15 ft. front yard setback, whereas the Ordinance requires a 25 ft. minimum front yard setback. Mr. Hasenohrl explained that his existing porch is an 18" high, 4 x 8 concrete stoop with an approximate 2" concrete slab on top which has settled and cracked causing water to drain into the basement. Mr. Hasenohrl stated that the proposed deck would be approximately 10' x 16' and would be constructed decoratively and tactfully. He said his nearest neighbors have no objections. Ms. Hintz inquired if the proposed deck would have a roof on it? Mr. Hasenohrl answered no. Ms. Hintz stated this instance is similar to a previous request but the difference is that this deck is to be elevated and the previous situation was a patio constructed on ground level. Mr. Lamine explained the difference between decks and porches (platforms). The City Ordinance allows this type of proposed structure in the back yard but not in the front yard. Mr. McGee went on to explain the difference between a stoop and porch. Ms. Hintz inquired as to the age of the house? Mr. Hasenohrl answered 33 - 34 years old. Mr. McGee inquired if it would be permissible to build this proposed deck if it were to be less than 12" above grade level? Mr. Lamine stated that we have not set any guidelines for level above grade. Mr. Hasenohrl stated his purpose was to utilize his front porch instead of merely being a front step. Mr. McGee stated that Mr. Hasenohrl could meet his needs within the ordinance if he would not elevate or put railings on the proposed porch. That would be permitted without a variance. A grade level platform would be no problem. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes Page Two May 6, 1987 Meeting Mr. Haaenohrl felt that would look terrible and would take away from enhancing the property and the area. Ms. Hintz inquired as to what hardship is being suffered other than the fact that water leaks? Mr. Lamina explained that a hardship has to be established. The proposed structure would be permitted in the back yard. It has to be proven that there is no other alternative to his request. Mr. Haaenohrl stated that there is no exit to the back yard. Motion by Hintz to move approval of a 15 ft. front yard setback for construction of a front porch. Seconded by Nitkowski. Motion denied 0-5. Regarding the findings of fact, Mr. Nitkowski felt there was no proven hardship, which is a prerequisite for granting a variance. II. 630 AMtERST AVENUE Mr. Lamina explained that the applicant is requesting a variance to construct a front porch with a 14 ft. front yard setback, whereas the Ordinance requires a 25 ft. minimum front yard setback. Mr. Marcus Julian, agent for Gamma Mu Housing Corp. stated they have a Rooming House permit but have a non - existent back yard. The only place to sit is in the front yard. He felt that a front porch would be less of an eyesore than having a large number of people sitting in the front yard in lawnchairs. He stated that houses nearby have porches that go beyond the setback requirement. Mr. Nitkowski inquired if variances were granted for others? Mr. Lamine stated they were probably grandfathered. Ms. Hintz inquired if the house presently has a porch? Mr. Julian stated it does not have a porch. Ms. Hintz inquired as to the size of the proposed porch. Mr. Julian stated that it would be an 8' deck and that to build a smaller deck to meet the requirements would not meet their needs because it would be too small to accommodate very many people and would not justify the cost. Ms. Hintz stated that the hardship is that there is no place to grill out and no back yard? Mr. Julian stated that it would provide optional space for the tenants to go. Ms. Hintz felt a rooming house does not always have amenities. How does the Ordinance prevent this property from being used as a rooming house? We have to come up with a hardship to grant this variance. Ms. Hintz inquired again as to hardship and what special set of circumstances existed is this situation?