Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Shiely provided additional information dated November 14, 2001, noting an inadvertent error <br />in issuance of the permit. Mr. Schiely stated the HofTs created a precedent for not meeting the <br />Code. <br /> <br />Member Cunningham asked for details of the 1990 variance, in which the council approved a <br />garage setback. <br /> <br />Mr. Shiely stated that the 1990 minor variance was not approved by three property owners (but it <br />was approved by the City Council). <br /> <br />Thomas Paschke explained the history of site leading up to the 11/14/01 hearing <br /> <br />Frank Hess, 1907 Shady Beach, asked for clarification of the undue hardship. Plants cannot be <br />used as a hardship in the Hoff case. Lights do not shine onto the Hoff site because of the slope of <br />the driveway. Mr. Hess asked for clarification of materials (wood and vinyl). (The Code does <br />not speak to the issue.) <br /> <br />Roger Hess, Jr., 1914 Wagner Place, asked if lights really do affect the Hoff house. Chair Rhody <br />explained that he had driven the site and found that glare does impact and headlights may not. <br />Mr. tless said the fence does affect the locality; How is it not affecting the essential character? <br /> <br />Thomas Paschke said the impact on adjacent properties, history of variance in the area that have <br />unique characteristics; public health, safety, welfare do not impact the essential character. <br /> <br />Kathleen Crea, 1901 Shady Beach Avenue, read into the record a letter (11/05/01). She stated the <br />city inspector asked Mr. Horfs workers to stop construction. The letter is attached to the <br />minutes. She noted that 75% to 80% of the property owners are opposed and should have a say in <br />this issue. <br /> <br />Mr. Hess stated that none of the city staff findings apply (a,b and c of staff report). <br /> <br />Linda Norcross, 1892 Wagner, stated that Robert Frost's poem on fences and neighbors actually <br />opposed fences. She opposed the fence because it gave no more privacy and less community. <br /> <br />Chair Rhody closed the hearing. <br /> <br />Member Olson asked if the fence met the MN DNR regulations. Thomas Paschke stated the MN <br />DNR does not have fence height regulations but that the City's Code of 6.5 feet does apply. <br /> <br />Member Traynor said he visited the site and found that the auto glare did not reach the house. <br /> <br />Thomas Paschke noted that visual glare could occur on portions of the house, not necessarily the <br />windows. The topography created a privacy issue because of house vehicles tilting or sloping on <br />the street or drives create headlight glare. <br /> <br />Chair Rhody reminded the Planning Commission that the variance request is for the front yard <br />only. <br />Member Olson noted that the past variances have been for privacy from a busy street. Here there <br />is no traffic, space between houses is available. Member Wilke agreed with this, noting that <br />people within 350 feet have a concem and that hardships do not exist. <br />