Variance Application APP2003-00817, Long Fence for Elaine Rabin The applicant seeks a five-foot variance from the front yard setback and a one-foot variance from the side yard setback to enclose an existing covered porch at 1022 Kennon Court. An Affidavit of Posting was submitted into the record as Exhibit 1. Phil Besche with Long Fence Company, presented the applicant’s request. Mr. Besche explained that the applicant has a covered porch that has existed for some time. Mr. Besche stated that she would like to enclose the porch with glass panels and rebuild the steps leading to it. Mr. Besche explained that the applicant has a very large open space in the back, but she would rather enjoy the expanse rather than build a porch in the back yard. Mr. Besche explained that the property is located on the bulb end of a court and is wedge shaped. He noted that the house is fairly close to the street. He said he does not believe this project is contrary to the public interest because the property is located at the end of a cul-de-sac and there is no drive by traffic. He said that there are many houses in the neighborhood are also close to the street and has stoops as close as 18 to 20 feet to the front property line. He also mentioned that the applicant’s back yard is expansive and gorgeous. Part of the issue is that by being at the end of the cult-de-sac, headlights from cars driving in to the cul-de-sac at night shine into the applicant’s window. Mr. Besche stated that he feels that because of the pie-shaped lot and if the house had been placed several feet back from street, a variance would not have been needed. Mr. Besche stated that the practical difficulty would be that if the applicant would enlarge the footprint on the lot would take away from the open space in the back yard and many of the neighbors in the community appreciate their back yard as opposed to what their visual is of the cul-de-sac. The side yard setback would not be an issue if this lot were not pie-shaped. In response to Mr. Deitchman regarding the sign, Ms. Hall explained that the sign was up during the time it snowed, but it bent over a bit with the snow and then during the day, the sign stood back up. Mr. Deitchman asked the reason why the applicant wants the porch enclosure. Mr. Besche replied that the applicant wants to add extra square footage to the house. She also has a very nice porch she wants to have enclosed and she enjoys her back porch. She has looked at trying to expand upwards, but found it too expensive. In response to Mr. Deitchman, Mr. Besche explained that the existing porch has no usable space for the applicant. The Board discussed the size of the porch, setback from the property line, and other porches in the neighborhood. In response to the Board, Mr. Besche stated that they have received no response from the neighbors. Ms. Hall stated that she did speak to Linda Mac Dermid (Chief of Inspection Services for the City), who lives next door to the applicant, about the application. Ms. Hall said that she had no problem with the application. Mr. Besche stated that the applicant is in agreement with the conditions stated in the staff report. The Board and staff discussed concerns regarding the encroachment of the addition, the materials to build the porch, elevations, and the three findings that must be made to approve the application. There being no one else to speak for or against the variance application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed.
Variance Application APP2003-00818, Marc Johnson The applicant seeks a six-foot six-inch variance from the front setback requirement for a covered porch at 721 Brent Road. An Affidavit of Posting was submitted into the record as Exhibit 1. Mr. Johnson presented his request. Mr. Johnson explained that this variance is due to the need to do extensive reconstruction on his house. He noted that his family is growing and they need to do extensive renovation that entails demolishing the second floor of the house, rebuilding it and rebuild the porch. Mr. Johnson stated that they believe the porch roof is the original fixture of the house, but they do have to rebuild the porch roof itself. The house sits back about 26 feet from the front property line. Mr. Johnson stated that he does not feel this application is detrimental to the public interest because his house was built in 1943, probably one of the original houses in the neighborhood. He and his family moved into the house in 1993. He said there are no site problems and neighbors have opposed his plans. Mr. Johnson noted that the variance request is not owing to the conditions that he has done. They moved into the house with the existing porch. Mr. Deitchman disclosed to the applicant that the Board has recommended that the code be changed to include a provision to permit an open porch. Mr. Johnson stated that if this application were not approved, it would create a practical difficulty for the family. The reason is that they are taking off the entire second floor of the house and the porch roof attaches to the house on the second floor. If this were not approved, they would have to redesign the house to meet the porch. The original porch has a hip roof and because they are slightly changing the look of the front of the house, the porch roof was designed to match the design of the house. He noted that the porch would always remain an open porch. In response to Mr. Hill, Mr. Johnson stated that he would not be adverse to a condition stating that the porch must remain an open structure. There being no one else to speak for or against the variance application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. DECISIONS Variance Application APP2003-00817, Long Fence for Elaine Rabin Mr. Sternstein moved, seconded by Mr. Hill to deny Variance Application APP2003-00817, Long Fence for Elaine Rabin for the lack of an adequate showing of practical difficulty and peculiarity of the property. The motion passed unanimously. Variance Application APP2003-00818, Marc Johnson Mr. Hill moved, seconded by Mr. Sternstein to approve Variance Application APP2003-00818, Marc Johnson per staff conditions and adding a third condition to this approval which requires that this porch remain an open structure unless the applicant applies for a variance to enclose the porch. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS The Board discussed an Urban Planning conference scheduled for February 21 and 28. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 10:15 a.m. NOTE: Should further details of this hearing be required, a tape recording of the meeting is available. The Planning Division maintains a tape of the meeting for a period not less than one year from the date of each meeting. | 
