Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Paschke, Thomas <br /> <br />From: <br />Sent: <br />To: <br />Subject: <br /> <br />Joel J. Jamnik [Joel@ck-Iaw.com] <br />Wednesday, January 26, 20004:04 PM <br />'Paschke, Thomas' <br />RE: Hot Topics <br /> <br />Thomas-- <br /> <br />Just curious, but regarding the Dunn's letter, is the only noncompliant <br />aspect the curb cut, or is the driveway surface too wide? <br /> <br />Either way, it seems that we have three options: <br />1) Find the property to be in substantial compliance with the variance <br />requirement. <br />2) Inform the property owners that while we appreciate their written <br />response, they (or their successors) are still legally required to comply <br />with the terms and conditions of the variance. and that while we are <br />sympathetic to their situation, they received a permit conditioned on <br />certain requirements and they are obligated to comply. <br />3) Inform them that they could pursue a modification of the variance, to <br />delete the required condition. This would require a new application, <br />hearing, etc. and may be hard to obtain, but it is legally available to them <br />as an alternative to complying with the variance. <br /> <br />With regard to the HarMar issue, it seems that since we did not have a <br />formal hearing on the decision with notice to the public and the residents, <br />that we can't consider Monday nif;Jht's meetinQ as the formal appeal. <br />Consequently, if the applicant indicates a desire to challenge the decision <br />and appeals within a reasonable time (30 days?), we should process the <br />appeal. which would necessitate a hearing before the planning commission and <br />a recommendation to the Council. <br /> <br />--Original Message--- <br />From: Paschke, Thomas [mailto:thomas.paschke@cLroseville.mn.us] <br />Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 11: 11 AM <br />To: Joel J. Jamnik <br />Subject: Hot Topics <br /> <br />Joel: <br /> <br />Get lots of rest and drink many healthy fluids and hopefully you will . <br />feel better or rid yourself of the nasty bug. <br /> <br />Now on to something really exciting. Attached. please find a response <br />to our letter (also attached) regarding the City's approval of a <br />variance for 2125 Hamline Road. Ms. Dunn contacted me and I asked for a <br />written response. Please review and advise. Thanks. <br /> <br />Next. I received a call from, you guessed it, Linda Fisher, asking what <br />their appeal process would be given the Council action on Monday and our <br />subsequent denial of their permit applications. Specifically, Linda <br />indicated that it is unclear (go figure) that the City Code does not <br />specifically state whether one go through a formal appeal process x days <br />after action by the Councilor whether they appeal to the DRC and go <br />through an administrative appeal. Linda is requesting a response by <br />Friday so that they can make a decision on how to proceed. Your review <br />and advise is greatly appreciated. <br /> <br />Lastly, Linda is interested in knowing what will be discussed at the <br />Council Work Session on Tuesday. February 22. I am also unclear as to <br />the focus of discussion and content of staff input and information <br />regarding the 25% lot coverage issue/determination. You may need to <br />discuss the matter with Tom Scott and get back to both myself and <br /> <br />1 <br />