2001_1126_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Shiely provided additional information dated November 14, 2001, noting an inadvertent error in issuance of the permit. Mr. Schiely stated the Hoffs created a precedent for not meeting the ('nriP Member Cunningham asked for details of the 1990 variance, in which the council approved a garage setback. Mr. Shiely stated that the 1990 minor variance was not approved by three property owners (but it was approved 'oy the i;iry �ouncii j. Thomas Paschke explained the history of site leading up to the 11/14/O1 hearing rrank Hess, lyU7 Shady 13each, asked for clarification of the undue hardship. Plants cannot be used as a hardship in the Hoff case. Lights do not shine onto the Hoff site because of the slope of the driveway. Mr. Hess asked for clarification of materials (wood and vinyl). (The Code does not speak to the issue.) Roger Hess, Jr., 1914 Wagner Place, asked if lights really do affect the Hoff house. Chair Rhody explained that he had driven the site and found that glare does impact and headlights may not. Mr. Hess said the fence does affect the locality; How is it not affecting the essential character? Thomas Paschke said the impact on adjacent properties, history of variance in the area that have unique characteristics; public health, safety, welfare do not impact the essential character. Kathleen Crea, 1901 Shady Beach Avenue, read into the record a letter (11/OS/O1). She stated the city inspector asked Mr. Hof�s workers to stop construction. The letter is attached to the minutes. She noted that 75% to 80% of the property owners are opposed and should have a say in thic iscne Mr. Hess stated that none of the city staff findings apply (a,b and c of staff report). Linda Norcross, 1892 Wagner, stated that Robert Frost's poem on fences and neighbors actually opposed fences. She opposed the fence because it gave no more privacy and less community. Chair Rhody closed the hearing. Member Olson asked if the fence met the MN DNR regulations. Thomas Paschke stated the MN i,i�ic does not nave ience heigni reguiaiions but inai tne i;iry's i;oae of ti.� �eet does appiy. iviember Traynor said 'ne visiteci tne site and founci that the auto giare did not reaeh the house. Thomas Paschke noted that visual glare could occur on portions of the house, not necessarily the windows. The topography created a privacy issue because of house vehicles tilting or sloping on the street or drives create headlight glare. Chair Rhody reminded the Planning Commission that the variance request is for the front yard only. Member Olson noted that the past variances have been for privacy from a busy street. Here there is no traffic, space between houses is available. Member Wilke agreed with this, noting that people within 350 feet have a concern and that hardships do not exist.