CC_Minutes_2004_0223 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting - 02/23104 Page 10 would be ten feet (10') from the property line. Mr. Rose noted that the actual seven foot (7') deck and existing bush would block most of the view of the deck from the neighbor; with most entertaining done inside the enclosed porch. Mr. Berkner referenced correspondence between the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and himself related to removal of foliage. Mayor Klausing thanked Mr. Rose and Mr. Berkner for their comments. Mayor Klausing reviewed the request and analysis of standards used for granting variances; and the legal tests applied by staff in their report dated February 23, 2004. Mayor Klausing noted that while he was sympathetic to Mr. Berkner's concerns related to the view, in his opinion, they were not sufficient to turn down the request. Councilmember Maschka concurred; opining that there was no legitimate reason to deny the variance request; and even if the City Council were to do so, a court could order the variance at a later date. Councilmember Kough expressed his division in determining whether to support the variance or not; desiring that the neighbors were able to work it out in a satisfactory way for both parties. Councilmember Kough noted that, if the addition was an open deck, and not partially enclosed, he could support the variance request, but that view was important. Councilmember Kough concluded that he would not support the variance request, citing his opinion that there were other alternatives available, and the view and area would be altered. Councilnlember Ihlan opined that, while Mr. Berkner's concerns about privacy and view were legitimate, she was unable to see a basis for denying the variance. Councilmember Ihlan also expressed a preference for neighbors seeking solutions; but it appeared that the applicant had done due diligence in seeking alternatives.